HISTORY  OF  THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND 
KANAWHA  COMPANY 


BY 


WAYLAND  FULLER  (BUNA  WAY,  A.  M.,  Th.M. 

Associate  Professor  of  History,  The  Pennsylvania  State  College 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
1922 


517511 


f#. 


COPYRIGNT,  IQ22 
BY 

WAYLAND  FULLER  DUNAWAY 


PREFACE 

THIS  monograph  is  a  study  of  a  phase  of  internal  im- 
provements in  Virginia  extending  over  a  period  of  ninety- 
five  years.  The  length  of  the  road  traversed  warned  the 
author  not  to  attempt  more  than  brief  excursions  into 
neighboring  fields,  however  inviting  these  might  be.  De- 
siring to  make  some  slight  contribution  to  the  history  of 
his  native  state,  he  has  sought  to  throw  additional  light 
upon  a  subject  apparently  obscure  and  to  clear  away  the 
misconceptions  which  have  enveloped  it. 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  Virginia's 
bid  for  the  western  trade,  and  the  works  that  it  constructed, 
of  which  the  canal  was  only  a  part,  formed  the  chief  com- 
mercial artery  of  the  state  in  ante  bellum  times.  As  such 
it  is  entitled  to  have  its  story  told,  and  the  purpose  is  to  tell 
it  not  so  much  from  the  point  of  view  of  an  agency  of 
transportation  as  from  that  of  a  great  ideal  conceived  by 
Washington,  fostered  by  Marshall,  and  partially  carried 
out  by  Cabell  and  his  successors. 

For  assistance  in  preparing  his  little  book  the  author  is 
indebted  chiefly  to  Professors  William  A.  Dunning  and 
Dixon  Ryan  Fox,  of  Columbia  University.  To  Professor 
Dunning,  under  whose  guidance  the  work  was  undertaken, 
he  is  indebted  for  wise  counsel  and  kindly  aid.  To  Pro- 
fessor Fox  he  is  under  special  obligation  for  a  careful  read- 
ing of  the  manuscript  and  for  many  helpful  criticisms  as  to 
form  and  content.  Acknowledgment  is  made  of  the  cour- 
teous co-operation  of  Dr.  H.  R.  Mclwaine  and  his  assist- 

m 


6  PREFACE  [246 

ants  at  the  Virginia  State  Library,  where  most  of  the  in- 
vestigation was  pursued.  For  the  imperfections  of  the 
monograph  the  author  alone  is  responsible. 

W.  F.  DUNAWAY. 

THE  PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  COLLEGE, 
SEPTEMBER,  1922. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 
Origin  of  the  Conception  of  Connecting  Virginia  with  the  West.  .       9 

CHAPTER  II 
The  James  River  Company  as  a  Private  Corporation,  1785-1820.  .      21 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Second  James  River  Company;  or  the  James  River  Company 
as  a  State  Enterprise,  1820-1835 48 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Incorporation  and  Organization  of  the  James  River  and  Kan- 
awha  Company,  1832-1835 92 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Completion  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  to  Bu- 
chanan, 1835-1851 123 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  at  the  Height  of  its  Ac- 
tivities, 1850-1860 163 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Effect  of  the  Civil  War  on  the  Fortunes  of  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company;  the  Attempt  to  Enlist  Federal  Aid'and 
its  Failure,  1861-1875 205 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Closing  Days  of  the  Canal;  its  Sale  and  Abandonment,  1875-1880.  226 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 

INDEX ,'  i ",.....  247 

VITA ...;...  253 

247]  7 


CHAPTER  I 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  CONCEPTION  OF  CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  , 
WITH  THE  WEST 

THE  History  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany, broadly  conceived,  is  the  story  of  an  enterprise  which 
was  intimately  interwoven  with  the  economic  life  of  Vir- 
ginia for  nearly  a  century.  It  was  easily  the  most  import- 
ant of  the  many  internal  improvements  fostered  by  the 
state  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  and  forms  a  significant  chapter 
in  the  larger  story  of  pioneer  America  with  its  advancing 
frontier  and  its  increasing  need  of  markets  and  transporta- 
tion facilities. 

The  idea  of  connecting  the  eastern-flowing  waters  of 
Virginia  with  those  flowing  westward  to  the  Mississippi 
early  found  lodgment  in  the  minds  of  her  far-sighted  men, 
and  remained  a  cherished  ideal  for  many  years.  This  con- 
ception is  supposed  by  antiquarians  to  have  originated  with 
Governor  Spotswood  when  on  his  famous  exploring  tour 
to  the  Blue  Ridge  in  1716,  but  the  proof  of  this  is  purely 
inferential.1  The  first  recorded  suggestion  of  a  through  line 
of  this  nature  is  found  in  a  letter  of  Rev.  James  Maury, 
who  had  been  one  of  the  companions  of  Governor  Spots- 
wood  in  his  transmontane  expedition.2  This  letter,  written 
to  an  uncle  of  Maury,  under  date  of  Jan.  10,  1756,  was 

1  Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  with  an  association  of  French  Capitalists  (Richmond,  1860), 
P.  5- 

*Ibid. 

249]  9 


I0       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [250 

suggested  by  a  new  map  which  had  recently  appeared,  and 
declared : 

When  it  is  considered  how  far  the  eastern  branches  of  the 
Mississippi  extend  eastward,  and  how  near  they  come  to  the 
navigable,  or  rather  canalable  parts  of  the  rivers  which  empty 
themselves  into  the  sea  that  washes  our  shores  to  the  east, 
it  seems  highly  probable  that  its  western  branches  reach  as  far 
the  other  way  and  make  as  near  approaches  to  rivers  empty- 
ing themselves  into  the  ocean  to  the  west  of  us  ....  across 
which  a  short  and  easy  communication  ....  short  in  com- 
parison with  the  present  route  thither,  opens  itself  to  the  navi- 
gation from  that  shore  of  the  continent  unto  the  eastern 
Indies.1 

This  letter  is  interesting  as  showing  how  the  idea  of  con- 
necting the  east  with  the  west  by  uniting  the  upper  reaches 
of  the  eastward  and  westward-flowing  rivers  had  at  an 
early  date  begun  to  enter  the  minds  of  prominent  Virgin- 
ians; and,  incidentally,  as  revealing  how  little  was  known 
of  the  geography  of  the  west  at  that  time. 

The  man  who  first  aroused  his  countrymen  to  the  im- 
portance of  joining  the  east  and  the  west  by  suitable  trans- 
portation facilities  was  none  other  than  George  Washington, 
who  knew  the  west  more  thoroughly  than  most  of  his  con- 
temporaries and  was  our  first  great  expansionist.  In  his 
youth  he  was  an  explorer  of  the  saddle-bags  and  surveying- 
instruments  variety.  At  a  later  period  he  became  still  more 
interested  in  the  western  country  for  economic  and  political 
reasons  and,  as  a  practical  statesman,  was  the  first  American 
to  outline  a  comprehensive  policy  of  western  expansion  and 
internal  improvement.  Beginning  his  acquaintance  with 
the  west  at  the  age  of  sixteen  as  a  surveyor  of  the  im- 
mense estates  of  Lord  Fairfax  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  in  1748,  and  gaining  further  information  of  its 

1  Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  with  an  association  of  French  Capitalists,  pp.  5-6. 


251]        CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  WITH  THE  WEST  n 

nature  and  possibilities  in  his  mission  to  the  French  forts 
as  an  envoy  of  Governor  Dinwiddie  in  1753,  he  made  no 
less  than  four  additional  exploring  tours  beyond  the  Alle- 
ghanies  and  thereby  acquired  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
country. 

It  appears  probable  that  Washington,  upon  his  return  to 
Williamsburg  from  his  mission  as  envoy  of  Governor  Din- 
widdie, urged  upon  the  governor  and  his  council  the  im- 
portance of  connecting  the  east  with  the  west  by  a  public 
highway,  on  the  ground  that  if  England  were  to  hold  the 
west  she  must  have  a  passageway  to  it;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  project  involved  great  expense,  no  serious  considera- 
tion was  given  to  it.1  Certain  it  is,  however,  that  from  this 
time  it  remained  a  favorite  project  of  Washington,  and  that 
he  lost  no  good  opportunity  to  bring  it  prominently  for- 
ward. He  discussed  it  repeatedly  with  his  friends,  referred 
to  it  in  his  letters  and  published  in  the  colonial  gazette 
extracts  from  his  journals  bearing  on  the  subject  with 
a  view  to  arousing  public  interest  in  the  project.2  The 
more  he  learned  of  the  west  by  his  repeated  visits  beyond 
the  Alleghanies  the  greater  became  his  ardor  for  connecting1 
it  with  the  east. 

When  Washington  made  his  western  tour  in  1774,  he 
was  surprised  to  find  the  change  that  had  recently  taken 
place  in  the  valley  of  the  Ohio.  Instead  of  encountering 
an  occasional  trapper  or  trader,  as  on  his  previous  tours, 
he  found  immigrants  occupying  that  region  in  considerable 
numbers.3  Regarding  the  opening  of  a  public  highway 
between  the  east  and  the  west  as  a  matter  of  first  import- 
ance and  believing  the  conditions  to  be  ripe  for  legislative 

1Pickell,  John,  A  New  Chapter  in  the  Early  Life  of  Washington 
(New  York,  1856),  p.  19. 

2  Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  etc.,  p.  6. 
'Hulbert,  A.  B.,  Washington's  Road  (Cleveland,  1903),  p.  192. 


I2       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [2$2 

action,  Washington  brought  the  subject  before  the  House 
of  Burgesses  at  its  regular  session  in  1774.  The  As- 
sembly did  not  receive  it  with  the  favor  he  thought  it 
merited,  the  principal  grounds  of  objection  being  the  ex- 
pense involved  and  doubts  as  to  the  practicability  of  the 
scheme.  Washington  now  changed  his  original  plan,  which 
had  contemplated  effecting  the  improvement  at  public  ex- 
pense, and  introduced  a  bill  to  empower  individuals  to  un- 
dertake the  extension  of  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac 
from  tidewater  to  Will's  Creek,  a  distance  of  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles.  The  bill  encountered  consider- 
able opposition  from  the  burgesses  of  central  and  southern 
Virginia,  who  conceived  that  it  would  prove  beneficial  only 
to  the  northern  section  of  the  colony.  To  conciliate  this 
element  an  amendment  was  incorporated  in  the  bill  to  in- 
clude in  its  provisions  the  improvement  of  James  River. 
In  this  form  it  had  a  fair  chance  of  passage  and  would 
doubtless  have  become  a  law  had  not  the  session  expired 
prematurely  and  difficulties  been  encountered  in  securing1 
the  concurrent  action  of  the  Maryland  legislature  with  re- 
ference to  the  Potomac.  Before  the  project  could  be 
matured  fully,  prospect  of  war  with  Great  Britain  diverted 
attention  from  it  and  a  decade  elapsed  before  it  could  be 
revived.1 

After  the  Revolution  Washington  returned  with  renewed 
ardor  to  his  scheme,  more  impressed  than  ever  with  the 
importance  of  connecting  the  east  with  the  west  and  of  ad- 
opting a  system  of  internal  improvement,  as  a  measure  of 
national  concern.  He  carried  on  a  considerable  correspon- 
dence on  the  subject,  advocating  the  policy  on  the  broad 
ground  of  the  general  welfare.2  On  Sept.  i,  1784,  Wash- 

1  Pickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  29 ;  also  Hulbert,  Washington's  Road,  p.  192 ;  vide 
also,   Washington's   letter  to  Thomas  Jefferson,   March  29,   1784,   The 
Writings  of  George  Washington  (Ford,  N.  Y.  and  London,  1889),  vol. 
x,  pp.  375-6. 

2  Pickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  34. 


253]         CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  WITH  THE  WEST  13 

ington  left  Mount  Vernon  for  a  tour  of  the  trans-Alle- 
ghany  country,  partly  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  con- 
dition of  his  lands  in  that  region  and  partly  to  satisfy  him- 
self more  fully  of  "  the  practicability  of  opening  a  com- 
munication between  the  headwaters  of  the  rivers  running 
eastward  into  the  Atlantic,  and  those  that  flow  westward 
into  the  Ohio".1  On  this  expedition  he  traveled  six  hun- 
dred and  fifty  miles,  mostly  on  horseback  but  frequently  on 
foot.  Returning  to  Mount  Vernon  he  transmitted  a  report 
of  his  investigations  to  Governor  Benjamin  Harrison,  to 
whom  he  wrote  a  long  letter  containing  the  first  general 
outline  of  the  system  of  internal  improvements  to  be  found 
in  the  annals  of  the  time  and  producing,  as  its  first  fruits, 
prompt  action  by  the  Virginia  Assembly.2 

Washington's  letter  to  Governor  Harrison,  dated  Oct. 
10,  1784,  was  the  outcome  of  his  various  expeditions  to  the 
trans-Alleghany  region  and  voices  his  profound  conviction 
as  to  the  commercial  and  political  expediency  of  opening 
new  channels  of  communication  with  the  rapidly  develop- 
ing west.8  It  is  one  of  the  longest  as  well  as  one  of  the 
most  interesting  and  suggestive  that  he  ever  wrote.  He 
says,  "  It  has  long  been  my  decided  opinion  that  the  shortest, 
easiest,  and  least  expensive  communication  with  the  invalu- 
able and  extensive  country  back  of  us  would  be  by  one  or 
both  of  the  rivers  of  this  state,  which  have  their  sources  in 
the  Appalachian  mountains."  *  He  then  proceeds  to  en- 
umerate the  objections  likely  to  arise  to  his  plan,  of  which 
the  chief  was  the  jealousy  existing  between  the  different 

1  Writings  of  George  Washington  (Sparks,  Boston,  1837),  vol.  i,  p.  408. 

2  Pickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  38. 

'For  Washington's  letter  to  Governor  Harrison,  vide,  The  Writings 
of  George  Washington  (Ford),  vol.  x,  pp.  404-14. 
'Ibid.,  p.  403. 


I4       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [254 

sections  of  the  commonwealth  lest  one  part  should  obtain 
an  advantage  over  the  others,  and  goes  on  to  say : 

Then  follows  a  train  of  difficulties,  namely,  that  our  people 
are  already  heavily  taxed;  that  we  have  no  money;  that  the 
advantages  of  this  trade  are  remote ;  that  the  most  direct  route 
for  it  is  through  other  states,  over  whom  we  have  no  control  ; 
that  the  routes  over  which  we  have  control  are  as  distant  as 
either  of  those  which  lead  to  Philadelphia,  Albany,  or  Mon- 
treal; that  a  sufficient  spirit  of  commerce  does  not  pervade 
the  citizens  of  this  commonwealth;  that  we  are  in  fact  doing 
for  others,  what  they  ought  to  do  for  themselves.  .  .  .x 

After  pointing  out  certain  peculiar  advantages  possessed 
by  Virginia,  he  says :  "  We  should  do  out  part  towards 
opening  the  communication  with  the  fur  and  peltry  trade 
of  the  Lakes,  and  for  the  produce  of  the  country  which  lies 
within,  and  which  will  ....  be  settled  faster  than  any 
one  ever  did,  or  any  one  would  imagine."  He  is  of  the 
opinion  that  self-interest  is  alone  sufficient  to  arouse  Vir- 
ginians to  their  opportunity,  but  that  political  considera- 
tions are  even  more  impelling.  In  this  connection  he  says : 

I  need  not  remark  to  you,  Sir,  that  the  flanks  and  rear  of  the 
United  States  are  possessed  by  other  powers,  and  formidable 
ones,  too;  nor  how  necessary  it  is  to  apply  the  cement  of  in- 
terest to  bind  all  parts  of  the  Union  together  by  indissoluble 
bonds,  especially  that  part  which  lies  immediately  west  of  us, 
with  the  middle  states.  For  what  ties,  let  me  ask,  should  we 
have  upon  those  people?  How  entirely  unconnected  with 
them  shall  we  be,  and  what  troubles  may  we  not  apprehend, 
if  the  Spaniards  on  their  right,  and  Great  Britain  on  their  left, 
instead  of  throwing  stumbling-blocks  in  their  way,  as  they 
now  do,  should  hold  out  lures  for  their  trade  and  alliance? 
What,  when  they  get  strength,  which  will  be  sooner  than  most 

1  Washington's  Writings  (Ford),  vol.  x,  p.  406. 


CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  WITH  THE  WEST  15 

people  conceive  (from  the  emigration  of  foreigners,  who  will 
have  no  particular  predilection  towards  us,  as  well  as  from 
removal  of  our  own  citizens),  will  be  the  consequences  of 
their  having  formed  close  connexions  with  both  or  either  of 
those  powers,  in  a  commercial  way?  .  .  .  ,1 

The  western  settlers  (I  speak  now  from  my  own  observa- 
tion) stand  as  it  were  upon  a  pivot.  The  touch  of  a  feather 
would  turn  them  any  way.  They  have  looked  down  the 
Mississippi,  until  the  Spaniards  ....  threw  difficulties  in 
their  way ;  and  they  looked  that  way  for  no  other  reason,  than 
because  they  could  glide  gently  down  the  stream  ....  and, 
because  they  have  no  other  means  of  coming  to  us  but  by 
long  land  transportations  and  unimproved  roads.  These 
causes  have  hitherto  checked  the  industry  of  the  present 
settlers.  .  .  .  But  smooth  the  road  and  make  easy  the  way 
for  them,  and  see  what  an  influx  of  articles  will  be  poured 
upon  us;  how  amazingly  our  exports  will  be  increased  by 
them,  and  how  amply  we  shall  be  compensated  for  any  trouble 
and  expense  we  may  encounter  to  effect  it.* 

Washington  then  expressed  the  opinion  that  existing  con- 
ditions, especially  the  disposition  of  Great  Britain  to  hold 
the  western  posts  as  long  as  possible,  made  Virginia  the 
logical  state  to  undertake  these  improvements;  and  that  the 
western  inhabitants  would  do  their  part  to  further  the  pro- 
ject. He  said: 

Weak  as  they  are,  they  would  meet  us  at  least  half  way, 
rather  than  be  driven  into  the  arms  of  or  be  made  dependent 
upon  foreigners;  which  would  eventually  either  bring  on  a 
separation  of  them  from  us,  or  a  war  between  the  United 
States  and  one  or  the  other  of  those  powers,  most  probably 
the  Spaniards. 

He  thought  that  the  preliminary  expense  would  be  small 

1 Washington's  Writings  (Ford),  vol.  x,  pp.  406-7. 
^Washington's  Writings  (Ford),  vol.  x,  pp.  407-08. 


!6       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [256 

and  that  at  the  same  time  the  enterprise  would  serve  to 
attract  the  attention  of  the  western  settlers  and  to  convince 
them  "  of  our  disposition  to  connect  ourselves  with  them, 
and  to  facilitate  their  commerce  with  us  'V 

Having  enumerated  the  advantages  likely  to  accrue  from 
the  execution  of  his  plan,  Washington  proceeded  to  re- 
commend to  Governor  Harrison  the  appointment  of  com- 
missioners of  high  character  and  ability  to  make  a  thorough 
investigation  of  the  matter  and  to  present  their  findings  to 
the  public.  He  said : 

Let  these  commissioners  make  an  actual  survey  of  James 
River  and  Potomac  from  tidewater  to  their  respective  sources ; 
note  with  great  accuracy  the  kind  of  navigation  and  the  ob- 
structions in  it,  the  difficulty  and  expense  attending  the  re- 
moval of  these  obstructions,  the  distances  from  place  to  place 
through  their  whole  extent,  and  the  nearest  and  best  portages 
between  these  waters  and  the  streams  capable  of  improve- 
ment, which  run  into  the  Ohio,  and  with  equal  accuracy.  The 
navigation  of  this  river  (the  Ohio)  being  well  known,  they 
will  have  less  to  do  in  the  examination  of  it;  but  nevertheless, 
let  the  courses  and  distances  be  taken  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Muskingum,  and  up  that  river  ....  to  the  carrying  place 
to  the  Cuyoga ;  down  the  Cuyoga  to  Lake  Erie ;  and  thence  to* 
Detroit.  Let  them  do  the  same  thing  with  Big  Beaver  Creek 
....  and  with  the  Scioto  also.  In  a  word,  let  the  waters 
east  and  west  of  the  Ohio,  which  invite  our  notice  by  their 
proximity,  and  by  the  ease  with  which  land  transportation 
may  be  had  with  them,  and  the  Lakes  on  one  side,  and  the 
Rivers  Potomac  and  James  on  the  other,  be  explored,  accur- 
ately delineated,  and  a  correct  and  connected  map  of  the 
whole  be  presented  to  the  public.2 

Washington  expressed  his  belief  that  if  the  foregoing 

1  Washington's  Writings  (Ford),  vol.  x,  pp.  409-10. 
a  Ibid.,  pp.  409-10. 


257]         CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  WITH  THE  WEST  17 

were  done,  prejudices  and  jealousies  would  yield  to  the  ob- 
vious advantages  revealed  by  the  facts  in  the  case.  He  sug- 
gests that  to  avoid  injurious  consequences  growing  out  of 
delay,  the  Assembly  might  grant  a  sum  of  money  towards 
opening  one  or  more  of  the  nearest  and  best  communica- 
tions with  the  west,  "  and  if  there  should  appear  a  manifest 
disposition  in  the  Assembly  to  make  it  a  public  undertak- 
ing, to  incorporate  and  encourage  private  adventurers  .... 
for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac 
or  James  Rivers ;  and  in  the  former  case  to  request  the  con- 
currence of  Maryland  in  the  measure/'  x  He  pointed  out 
that  the  produce  of  the  settlements  about  Fort  Pitt  could 
be  brought  to  Alexandria  by  water,  by  the  Youghiogheny- 
Potomac  route,  a  distance  of  three  hundred  and  four  miles, 
of  which  only  thirty-one  miles  would  be  by  portage,  and 
added : 

For  my  own  part,  I  think  it  highly  probable,  that  upon  the 
strictest  scrutiny,  if  the  Falls  of  the  Great  Kanhawa  can  be 
made  navigable,  or  a  short  portage  be  had  there,  it  will  be 
found  of  equal  importance  and  convenience  to  improve  the 
navigation  of  both  the  James  and  Potomac.  The  latter  .... 
affords  the  nearest  communication  with  the  Lakes ;  but  James 
River  may  be  more  convenient  for  all  the  settlers  below  the 
mouth  of  the  Great  Kanhawa,  and  for  some  distance  perhaps 
above  the  west  of  it  ....  Upon  the  whole,  the  object  is  in 
my  estimation  of  vast  commercial  and  political  importance.2 

To  Washington's  letter  Governor  Harrison  replied,  Nov. 
13,  1784,  strongly  approving  "your  plan  for  opening  the 
navigation  of  the  western  waters  ",  and  stated  that  he  had 
taken  the  liberty  of  laying  the  letter  before  the  Assembly, 
"  who  appear  so  impressed  with  the  utility  of  the  measure, 

''•Writings  of  George  Washington  (Ford),  vol.  x,  p.  4>n. 
3  Ibid.,  pp.  412-13. 


jg       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [258 

that  I  dare  say  they  will  order  the  survey  you  propose  im- 
mediately, and  will  at  their  next  sitting  proceed  to  carry 
the  plan  into  execution  V  The  Assembly  referred  Wash- 
ington's communication,  which  was  received  with  the  great- 
est respect,  to  an  appropriate  committee.  The  ablest  and 
most  influential  members  of  the  Assembly  rallied  with  en- 
thusiasm to  the  support  of  Washington's  views.2  At  this 
stage  of  events  Washington,  accompanied  by  Lafayette, 
paid  a  visit  to  Richmond  and  received  a  tremendous  ova- 
tion. There  were  many  entertainments  and  much  speech- 
making  in  honor  of  these  two  distinguished  men,  the  Legis- 
lature being  then  in  session.  But  amidst  it  all  the  great 
business  of  promoting  the  internal  improvements  then  in 
contemplation  was  not  forgotten.  "  The  ardor  of  the 
moment ",  says  Marshall,  "  was  seized  to  conquer  those 
objections  to  the  plan  which  yet  lingered  in  the  bosoms  of 
those  who  could  perceive  in  it  no  future  advantages  to  com- 
pensate for  the  present  expense  ".3  Nor  did  Washington, 
to  whom  the  project  had  now  become  a  matter  of  primary 
concern,  fail  to  impress  by  private  conversations  its  im- 
portance upon  leading  members  of  the  Assembly.  Madison, 
then  a  member  of  the  Assembly,  was  much  impressed  with 
the  enthusiasm  displayed  by  the  General  for  his  pet  enter- 
prise. In  a  letter  to  Jefferson,  he  says : 

The  earnestness  with  which  he  espouses  the  undertaking  is 
hardly  to  be  described,  and  shows  that  a  mind  like  his,  capable 
of  great  views  and  which  has  long  been  occupied  with  them, 
cannot  bear  a  vacancy;  and  surely  he  could  not  have  chosen 
an  occupation  more  worthy  of  succeeding  to  that  of  establish- 
ing the  political  rights  of  his  country,  than  the  patronage  of 

1  Writings  of  George  Washington  (Ford),  vol.  x,  p.  415, 

*  Marshall,  John,  Life  of  George  Washington  (Phila.,  1804-1807),  voL. 
v,  p.  17. 

*  Marshall,  Life  of  George  Washington,  vol.  v,  p.  17. 


259]        CONNECTING  VIRGINIA  WITH  THE  WEST  19 

works  for  the  extensive  and  lasting  improvement  of  its  natural 
advantages;  works  which  will  double  the  value  of  half  the 
lands  within  the  commonwealth,  will  extend  its  commerce, 
link  with  its  interests  those  of  the  western  states,  and  lessen 
the  emigration  of  its  citizens  by  enhancing  the  profitableness 
of  situation  which  they  now  desert  in  search  of  better. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  conception  of  connecting  Vir- 
ginia with  the  west.  To  Washington  is  due  the  credit  of 
originating  and  fostering  this  movement  in  those  early  days 
when  it  possessed  for  his  countrymen  all  the  charm  of 
novelty  and  seemed  to  contain  within  itself  tremendous 
potentialities.  To  his  initiative  was  due  the  introduction 
into  the  Virginia  Assembly  of  the  bills  to  incorporate  the 
Potomac  Company  and  the  James  River  Company,  for  the 
improvement  of  the  navigation  of  those  two  rivers  and  aim- 
ing ultimately  at  the  connecting  by  public  highways  of  their 
sources  with  the  sources  of  the  rivers  flowing  westward  into 
the  Ohio,  and  thereby  providing  channels  of  communication 
with  the  developing  west.  They  were  twin  enterprises 
fostered  by  the  state  and  each  has  an  interesting  history. 
Out  of  the  Potomac  Company  grew  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  Company  and  the  canal  it  constructed,  which 
is  still  in  operation.  It  fell  short  of  accomplishing  the 
purpose  Washington  had  cherished  of  a  complete  connec- 
tion with  the  west ;  but  the  Cumberland  Road  and  later  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  carried  out  his  main  idea  for 
that  route  and  justified  his  fundamental  plan.  Out  of  the 
James  River  Company  sprang  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company,  with  the  canal  and  other  works  it  con- 
structed, including  the  highway  from  the  sources  of  the 
James  to  the  Ohio  river.  This  project  also  failed  to 
measure  to  the  full  standard  of  Washington's  conception, 

lThe  Writings  of  fames  Madison  (Hunt  ed,  N.  Y.  and  London, 
1901),  vol.  ii,  pp.  104,  109. 


20       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [26o 

but  along  the  valley  of  the  James  and  the  general  route  of 
the  line  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company's  im- 
provements runs  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railway,  also 
carrying  out  Washington's  fundamental  conception  and  ex- 
emplifying his  practical  wisdom.  The  origin  of  both  en- 
terprises was  due  to  Washington's  early  appreciation  of 
the  future  of  our  western  territory,  and  to  his  counsels  and 
zeal  in  pressing  its  importance  upon  his  countrymen. 

We  now  turn  to  that  phase  of  the  general  scheme  of  in- 
ternal improvements  thus  inaugurated,  as  represented  by 
the  James  River  Company  and  what  grew  out  of  that  com- 
pany.1 

1  The  relation  of  the  James  (River  Company  to  the  Potomac  Company 
seems  to  have  been  confusing  to  writers  on  the  subject.  Even  so  good 
a  historian  as  Justin  Winsor  makes  the  mistake  of  thinking  they  con- 
stituted a  single  enterprise.  iHe  says,  "After  the  James  River  and 
Potomac  Canal  Company  was  organized,  Washington  was  induced  to 
become  its  first  president."  Winsor,  The  Westward  Movement,  p.  257. 
There  was  a  James  River  Company  and  there  was  a  Potomac  Company, 
but  there  was  no  "  James  River  and  Potomac  Canal  Company."  For 
Washington's  relation  to  the  two  projects,  see  infra.  Beveridge  is  also 
badly  confused  as  to  these  two  companies.  He  says,  "  The  Potomac  and 
James  River  Company,  of  which  Marshall  when  a  young  lawyer  had 
become  a  stockholder/'  etc.  See  Albert  J.  Beveridge,  The  Life  of 
John  Marshall  (Boston  and  New  York,  1919),  vol.  iv,  p.  42.  Beveridge 
makes  the  further  mistake  of  stating  that  the  James  River  Company  was 
formed  in  1784,  in  ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  56,  whereas  the  bill  incorporating  this 
company  was  passed  January  5,  1785,  and  the  organization  was  effected 
August  2'i,  1785,  'See  Journal  House  of  Delegates,  1781-1786,  p.  70. 
The  fact  that  Hening  does  not  give  the  date  of  passage  of  the  bill, 
but  simply  states  that  it  was  passed  at  the  "  October  Session  ",  1784,  has 
led  many  to  give  1784  as  the  year  of  incorporation  of  the  James  River 
Company.  But  the  "October  Session"  continued  into  1785,  and  the 
House  Journal  clears  up  the  matter. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  AS  A  PRIVATE  CORPORATION 
(1785-1820) 

As  the  most  important  water-way  lying  wholly  within 
the  borders  of  the  state,  the  James  river  has  played  an  im- 
portant role  in  the  history  of  Virginia  from  the  beginning. 
Formed  in  Alleghany  county  by  the  junction  of  the  Jackson 
and  Cowpasture  rivers,  it  pursues  a  devious  course  of  some 
three  hundred  and  thirty-five  miles  to  its  mouth.  Below; 
Richmond,  which  is  at  the  head  of  tide-water,  no  obstacles 
to  navigation  present  themselves;  but  above  that  city,  first 
the  falls  and  then  a  series  of  obstacles  of  various  kinds 
occur  at  intervals  to  its  source,  and  navigation  in  the  early 
days  was  difficult  and  often  dangerous.1  Consequently,  it 
was  that  portion  of  the  river  above  Richmond,  or  about 
two-thirds  of  its  course,  which  was  the  occasion  of  so 
much  interest  and  legislative  activity  on  the  part  of  those 
who  fostered  its  improvement  as  an  important  link  in  the 
chain  of  Virginia's  internal  communications.  In  the  early 
days  this  part  of  the  river  furnished  almost  the  only  means 

1  " Tradition  assigns  to  (Rev.  Robert  Rose  (friend  and  executor  of 
Governor  Spotswood)  the  credit  of  being  the  first  white  settler  in 
Virginia  to  propose  the  descent  of  James  River  above  tide-water  in  an 
open  boat.  This  feat  he  accomplished  as  far  as  Richmond,  from  a 
point  some  fifty  miles  above,  in  company  with  two  others,  it  is  thought 
as  early  as  1726.  To  his  resolution  and  pluck,  has  been  claimed,  was 
due  the  important  demonstration  of  the  navigability  of  the  rapids  of 
James  River — a  knowledge  which  soon  ripened  into  the  practical  use- 
fulness of  freight  transportation."  Wm.  F.  Switzler,  in  Report  on 
Internal  Commerce  of  the  U.  S.,  1886,  part  ii  of  Commerce  and  Navi- 
gation, p.  10. 

261]  21 


22       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [262 

of  transportation  for  a  large  and  fertile  section  of  central 
Virginia. 

On  the  western  side  of  the  Alleghanies  and 'lying  wholly 
within  the  borders  of  old  Virginia  the  principal  river  is  the 
Great  Kanawha,  which  is  formed  by  the  junction  of  the 
New  and  Gauley  rivers  and  is  navigable  practically 
throughout  its  whole  length,  a  distance  of  about  ninety- 
eight  miles  to  Point  Pleasant  on  the  Ohio.  The  Green- 
brier,  a  tributary  of  the  New,  is  the  nearest  river  of  West 
Virginia  to  the  sources  of  the  James,  and  were  it  joined 
by  a  canal  with  the  James  there  would  be  a  central  water 
route  connecting  the  Virginia  Capes  with  the  Mississippi.1 
To  unite  the  sources  of  these  eastward  and  westward-flow- 
ing rivers,  first  by  a  public  highway,  and  later  by  a  canal, 
was  long  a  favorite  scheme  of  Virginia  statesmen. 

The  plan  proposed  in  1784,  however,  contemplated  only 
the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  James  above 
Rkhmond;  but  in  the  'background  loomed  ever  the  larger 
project  of  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Greenbrier,  the 
New,  and  the  Great  Kanawha,  and  the  connection  of  the 
two  river  systems  by  a  public  highway,  thereby  furnishing; 
a  through  line  to  the  west.  As  time  passed  and  the  de- 
velopment of  the  country  outstripped  all  calculations,  it  was 
found  that  the  improvement  was  inadequate  to  meet  the 
growing  needs,  and  in  its  stead  was  adopted  the  more  com- 
prehensive plan  of  a  continuous  water  line  from  Richmond 

1  "  Kanawha  River  rises  in  Watauga,  Ashe,  and  Alleghany  counties, 
N.  C.,  flows  northwestward  through  Va.  and  W.  Va.,  and  joins  the 
Ohio  at  Point  Pleasant,  Wl  Va.  In  its  upper  course  it  is  known  as  the 
New  River.  .  .  .  The  main  river  cuts  the  Alleghany  front  just  below 
Pearisburg,  Va.,  thence  the  course  of  the  river  lies  through  a  narrow 
valley  of  W.  Va.,  over  a  rough  bed  with  many  falls  and  rapids.  .  .  . 
Below  the  junction  with  the  Gauley  the  river  is  known  as  the  Kanawha," 
vide,  Grover  and  Bolster,  Hydrography  of  Virginia,  Geological  Series, 
Bulletin  no.  Hi  (Published  by  Va.  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Immigra- 
tion, 1906),  p.  213. 


263]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  23 

to  the  Ohio,  and  in  its  larger  aspect,  from  the  Atlantic  to 
the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries.  It  was  a  great 'ideal, 
worthy  to  engage  the  best  thought  and  endeavor  of  the 
statesmen  of  the  time. 

Prior  to  1785  the  Virginia  Assembly  had  passed  several 
acts  with  reference  to  the  improvement  of  the  James  above 
Richmond,  but  it  appears  that  these  remained  a  dead  letter, 
though  the  idea  persisted.1  On  Nov.  15,  1784,  Washing- 
ton arrived  in  Richmond  to  meet  Lafayette  and  to  promote 
his  project  for  internal  improvement  as  outlined  in  his  letter 
to  Governor  Harrison.  On  the  morning  after  his  arrival 
he  was  waited  upon  by  a  committee  of  the  Assembly,  headed 
by  Patrick  Henry,  bearing  greetings  from  that  body.  In 
compliance  with  the  suggestion  of  Washington,  the  As- 
sembly proceeded  to  appoint  a  commission  to  make  the  re- 
quisite surveys,  and  Washington  returned  to  Mount  Vernon, 
accompanied  by  Lafayette.2  On  December  15,  1784,  it  was 
ordered  in  the  House  that  leave  be  given  for  bringing  in  a 
bill  for  opening  and  extending  the  navigation  of  James 
River,  "  and  that  Messrs.  Madison,  Southall,  Carrington, 
Johnston,  Wilson  Carry  Nicholas,  and  Benjamin  Harrison, 
do  prepare  and  bring  in  the  same."  3  The  bill  duly  passed 
through  its  various  stages  and  became  a  law  Jan.  5,  1785, 
and  was  signed  on  the  same  day  by  John  Tyler,  Speaker  of 
the  House,  together  with  the  bills  incorporating  the  Potomac 

JThe  House  of  Burgesses  passed  an  act  Dec.  27,  1765,  for  improving 
the  navigation  of  James  River,  and  authorized  certain  men  to  receive 
subscriptions  for  that  purpose.  Hening,  W.  W.,  The  Statutes-at-Large 
(Phila.  and  N.  Y.,  1823),  vol.  viii,  pp.  148-50,  cf.  Journal  H.  of  B.f 
I76i-5,  p.  3S5;  also  act  of  Feb.,  1772  "for  opening  the  Falls  of  James 
River  by  subscription,  etc.,"  Hening,  vol.  viii,  pp.  564-70,  cf.  Journal 
H.  of  B.,  1770-72,  p.  303- 

'Article  "Canals,"  by  R.  A.  Brock,  in  Richmond  Standard,  Feb.  i& 
1879 ;  also  Madison's  letter  to  Jefferson,  Hunt's  Madison,  vol.  ii,  pp.  104-07. 

1  Journal  H.  of  D.,  1781-86,  p.  70. 


24       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [264 

Company  and  for  "  vesting  in  George  Washington  a  cer- 
tain interest  in  the  companies  established  for  opening  and 
extending  said  rivers  ".1 

The  act  of  Jan.  14,  1785,  declares  that: 2 

Whereas  the  clearing  and  extending  the  navigation  of  James 
river  from  tide-water  upwards,  to  the  highest  practicable  point 
on  the  main  branch  thereof,  will  be  of  great  public  utility, 
and  many  persons  are  willing  to  subscribe  large  sums  of  money 
to  effect  so  laudable  and  beneficial  a  work;  and  it  is  just  and 
reasonable  that  they  ....  should  be  empowered  to  receive 
reasonable  tolls  for  the  money  advanced  by  them  in  carrying 
the  work  into  execution,  and  for  the  risk  they  run ;  and, 

Whereas  it  may  be  necessary  to  cut  canals  and  erect  locks  or 
other  works  on  the  sides  of  the  said  river,3 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  that  it  shall  ....  be 
lawful  to  open  books  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  the  borough  of 
Norfolk,  at  Botetourt  court  house,  at  the  town  of  Lewisburg, 
in  Greenbrier  county,  and  at  Charles  Irving's  store,  in  Albe- 
marle,  for  receiving  and  entering  subscriptions  to  the  amount 
of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  for  the  said  undertaking, 
under  the  management  of  Turner  Southall  and  James  Buch- 
anan, in  the  city  of  Richmond;  of  Robert  Taylor,  Jno.  Kear- 
nes,  and  Thos.  Newton,  Jr.,  in  the  borough  of  Norfolk;  of 
Wm.  Cabell  and  Charles  Irving  at  Irving's  store;  Patrick; 
Lockhart  and  Geo.  Skellern,  at  Botetourt  Courthouse;  Geo. 
Clendinen  and  Andrew  Donolly,  at  Lewisburg.  .  .  .4 

The  act  further  provided  that  the  books  should  be  opened 
for  receiving  subscriptions  from  Feb.  i,  1785,  to  Aug.  10, 
1 785 ;  that  on  Aug.  2Oth  there  should  'be  a  general  meeting 

1  Journal  H.  of  D.,  1781-86,  pp.  108-10;  also  Hening,  vol.  xi,  pp. 
450-62;  and  Brock,  op.  cit.,  supra. 

8  For  this  act,  vide  Hening,  vol.  xi,  pp.  450-62. 
'The  preamble  is  section  I,  of  the  bill. 
*  Section  2. 


265]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  2$ 

of  the  subscribers  at  Richmond;  and  that  the  capital  sum 
should  be  divided  into  five  hundred  shares  of  two  hundred 
dollars  each.1  Section  three  provided  that  in  case  half  of 
the  capital  sum  should  be  subscribed,  the  subscribers  should 
be  incorporated  into  a  company  "  by  the  name  of  the 
'  James  River  Company '  ",  and  authorized  them  to  effect 
an  organization  by  the  election  of  a  president  and  four 
directors.  After  investing  the  company  with  all  the  rights 
and  powers  necessary  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  purposes  of 
incorporation,  section  eighteen  of  the  act  declares  that: 

The  tolls  herein  before  allowed  to  be  demanded  shall  be  paid 
on  condition  only,  that  the  said  "  James  River  Company " 
shall  make  the  river  well  capable  of  being  navigated  in  dry 
seasons  by  vessels  drawing  one  foot  of  water  at  least,  from 
the  highest  place  practicable  to  the  great  falls,  beginning  at 
Westham,  and  shall  at  or  near  the  said  falls,  make  such  cut  or 
cuts,  canal  or  canals,  with  sufficient  locks,  if  necessary,  each  of 
eighty  feet  in  length,  and  sixteen  feet  in  breadth,  as  will  open 
a  navigation  to  tidewater,  in  all  places  at  least  twenty-five  feet 
wide,  except  at  such  locks,  and  capable  of  conveying  vessels 
or  rafts  drawing  four  feet  of  water  at  least,  into  tidewater, 
or  shall  render  such  part  of  the  river  navigable  in  the  natural 
course.  i 

The  act  further  provided  that  if  the  company  failed  to 
begin  work  within  one  year  after  its  organization,  or  to 
complete  the  work  within  ten  years,  its  charter  should  be 
forfeited.2  Section  twenty  empowered  the  commonwealth 
to  subscribe  to  one  hundred  shares  of  the  capital  stock,  to 
be  paid  as  required. 

Sections  ii  and  iii. 

2  Section  xix.  According  to  iRingwalt  this  charter  was  the  first  under 
which  active  operations  were  prosecuted  in  this  country  for  the  improv- 
ing of  river  navigation.  See  J.  L.  Ringwalt,  Development  of  Trans- 
portation Systems  in  the  United  States  (Phila.,  1888),  p.  41. 


26       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [266 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  incorporation,  books  were 
opened  for  receiving  subscriptions  at  the  places  designed  in 
the  charter  on  Feb.  i,  1785,  and  continued  open  until  Aug. 
20,  1785;  following  which  a  meeting  of  subscribers  was 
held  in  Richmond  Aug.  20,  i/Ss.1  It  was  found  that  nearly 
the  whole  number  of  shares  required  was  completed  by  sub- 
scriptions made  in  Richmond  alone,  and  it  appearing  from 
advices  received  of  subscriptions  elsewhere  that  the  capital 
sum  was  over-subscribed,  the  stockholders  proceeded  on  the 
following  day,  Aug.  21,  to  perfect  an  organization  by  the 
election  of  a  president  and  four  directors.  George  Wash- 
ington was  elected  president ;  and  John  Harvie,  David  Ross, 
Wm.  Cabell,  and  Edmund  Randolph,  directors.  The  re- 
gular annual  meeting  was  held  in  Oct.,  1785,  when  the  same 
officers  were  elected  for  a  term  of  three  years.  At  a  subse- 
quent meeting  of  directors,  James  Buchanan  was  elected 
treasurer,  James  Harris  manager,  and  James  Brindley 
clerk.2  Thus  was  constituted  the  James  River  Company, 
which  continued  under  the  existing  charter  until  1820, 
when  it  underwent  radical  changes  at  the  hands  of  the 
Legislature. 

Washington,  whose  primary  interest  was  in  the  Potomac 
Company,  of  which  he  became  the  active  president,  did  not 
desire  the  presidency  of  the  James  River  Company  since 
he  knew  he  could  not  assume  its  active  duties;  but  his  in- 
terest in  the  success  of  the  enterprise  was  such  that  he  was 
prevailed  upon  to  allow  his  name  to  stand  as  head  of  the 
company  with  the  understanding  that  he  would  not  serve 
actively  in  that  capacity.3  Edmund  Randolph  wrote  Wash- 

1  Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  with  an  Association  of  French  Capitalists,  p.  9. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  9;  also  Mordecai,  S.,  Richmond  in  Bygone  Days  ('Richmond, 
1830,  1860),  p.  297. 

'Marshall,  Life  of  Washington,  vol.  v,  p.  24. 


267]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  27 

ington,  "  I  endeavored  to  deliver  you  from  the  office  of 
President,  but  the  universal  suffrage  called  you  to  the  post, 
without  an  expectation,  however,  that  you  should  undergo 
more  of  the  business  than  your  convenience  may  reconcile 
you."  x  To  this  communication  Washington  replied : 

I  feel  very  sensibly  the  honor  and  confidence  which  has  been 
reposed  in  me  by  the  James  River  Company,  and  regret  that 
it  will  not  be  in  my  power  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the 
office  of  President  of  the  Board  of  Directors  with  that  punc- 
tuality and  attention  which  the  trust  requires.  Every  ser- 
vice, however,  that  I  can  render,  compatible  with  my  other 
avocations,  shall  be  afforded  with  pleasure  ....  I  would 
earnestly  recommend  to  you  to  press  the  execution  of  the  sur- 
vey between  the  James  River  and  the  navigable  waters  of 
the  Kanhawa,  and  a  proper  investigation  of  the  latter.  It  will 
be  a  source  of  great  commerce  with  the  capital  and  in  my 
opinion  will  be  productive  of  great  political  consequences  to 
the  country.2 

Owing  to  the  inability  of  Washington  to  give  personal 
attention  to  the  affairs  of  the  company,  Edmund  Randolph 
was  appointed  as  acting-president,  which  office  he  continued 
to  hold  until  1789,  when  he  resigned  its  duties  to  become 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Dr.  William  Foushee.  Washington  continued  to  be 
honorary  president  of  the  company  until  1795,  when  his 
connection  with  the  organization  ceased  entirely  and  Dr. 
Foushee  became  president  in  name  as  well  as  in  fact.8 

The  company  thus  organized  was  essentially  a  river  im- 
provement concern  chartered  for  the  purpose  of  improving 

1  Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  fames  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  with  an  Association  of  French  Capitalists,  p.  9. 

'Ford's  Washington's  Writings,  vol.  x,  pp.  497-8. 

^Report  on  Internal  Commerce  of  the  U.  S.,  1886,  part  ii  of  'Commerce 
and  Navigation,  p.  u;  also  Mordecai,  Richmond  in  Bygone  Days,  p.  298. 


28       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [268 

the  navigation  of  the  James  above  Richmond,  and  its  task 
was  chiefly  to  improve  the  bed  of  the  river  by  removing1 
obstacles  to  navigation.  This  was  accomplished  for  the 
most  part  by  opening  and  enlarging  sluices.  But  the 
charter  further  required  that  navigation  be  opened  to  tide- 
water, and  this  required  the  digging  of  a  canal  around  the 
falls  immediately  above  Richmond  to  Westham,  a  distance 
of  about  seven  miles.  This  was  the  most  difficult  and  ex- 
pensive part  of  the  work.  Strictly  speaking,  it  consisted  of 
two  canals  connected  by  slackwater  navigation.  The 
canals,  known  as  the  upper  and  lower,  were  between  three 
and  four  miles  in  their  whole  extent,  and  were  supposed  to 
'be  thirty  feet  wide  and  three  feet  deep — dimensions  which 
they  seldom  attained.  The  lower  level  extended  from  Rich- 
mond to  what  was  know  as  the  "  lower  arch  ".  The  river 
was  then  used  for  a  distance  of  about  three  miles,  at 
which  point  the  upper  canal,  of  about  two  hundred  and 
fifty  yards  in  length,  was  located.  Thence  to  Crow's  Ferry 
the  navigation  was  carried  on  altogether  in  the  bed  of  the 
river,  the  sluices  of  which  were  opened  and  improved.1 

The  first  survey  of  the  route  of  the  canal  was  made  by 
Eliot  Lacy  in  1786.  The  company,  being  required  by  the 
charter  to  provide  a  continuous  water-way  from  the  falls 
or  rapids  above  Richmond  to  tidewater  'below  the  city,  was 
authorized  to  acquire  land  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  in 
width  for  this  canal,  the  title  for  which  it  obtained  in  fee- 
simple.2 

At  the  October  session  of  the  Legislature,  1785,  the 
original  act  of  incorporation  was  amended  to  allow  the  com- 
pany to  extend  the  shares  "  so  as  not  to  exceed  one  hundred 

^Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company, 
p.  667.  Crow's  Ferry  was  220  miles  from  Richmond. 

*R.  A.  Brock,  article  "Canals"  in  Richmond  Standard,  Feb.  15,  1879; 
also  Hening,  vol.  xi,  pp.  457-8. 


269]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  29 

shares  in  addition  to  those  already  subscribed,  and  to  pro- 
portion the  depth  of  water  in  the  canals  to  the  depth  of  the 
water  in  the  river  in  dry  seasons."  This  act  further  estab- 
lished Crow's  Ferry,  at  the  mouth  of  Looney's  creek,  as  the 
highest  point  of  navigation;  and  authorized  the  company 
to  borrow  money  at  six  per  cent,  interest.1  The  requisi- 
tions on  the  original  five  hundred  shares,  of  two  hundred 
dollars  each,  began  Dec.  i,  1785,  and  continued  until  Feb. 
20,  1791.  With  the  funds  thus  provided  the  work  pro- 
gressed favorably  for  a  while,  but  soon  began  to  encounter 
difficulties,  involving  as  it  did  great  labor  and  expense  and 
being  pursued  at  considerable  financial  risk  to  those  engaged 
in  it.2  Doubtless  it  was  this  risk  which  cooled  the  ardor 
of  many  of  the  subscribers  and  caused  them  to  overlook 
paying  their  subscriptions.  The  company,  however,  not 
to  be  outdone  in  the  matter,  secured  an  act  of  Assembly, 
Dec.  i,  1787,  authorizing  legal  proceedings  against  the 
delinquents  to  force  payment  of  subscriptions.3  The  treas- 
ury being  now  somewhat  replenished,  work  on  the  canal 
proceeded  more  rapidly  and  was  completed  in  Dec.,  1789, 
to  about  seven  miles  above  the  city;  and  on  Dec.  29,  1789, 
the  members  of  the  general  assembly  were  invited  to  take 
a  trip  up  the  canal  and  through  the  locks.  But  it  was  not 
until  1795  tna-t  ^ne  work  was  completed  so  as  to  allow  boats 
to  enter  Richmond  for  the  purpose  of  loading  and  unload- 
ing.4 

On  Nov.  25,  1790,  the  company  memorialized  the  Legis- 
lature, setting  forth : 

That  the  canal  and  improved  navigation  of  James  River  is 

1Hening,  vol.  xii,  pp.  116-17. 

*  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1805,  pp.  1-2. 

*Hening,  vol.  xii,  p.  508. 

4R.  A.  Brock,  article  "Canals,"  Richmond  Standard,  Feb.  15,  1879. 


30 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 


fully  completed  from  the  first  obstructions  at  Westham  down 
to  a  place  called  Broad  Rock,  and  from  thence  considerable 
progress  is  made  still  downwards,  so  as  to  afford  good  reason 
to  expect  complete  navigation  for  batteaux  to  the  city  of 
Richmond  in  two  years  ....  when  it  will  soon  afterwards 
yield  a  revenue  adequate  to  the  sum  expended,  which  must 
increase  in  proportion  to  the  population  and  wealth  of  an  ex- 
tensive country  greatly  benefited  by  this  navigation.1 

The  memorial  further  represents  that  the  original  stock 
subscribed  is  so  nearly  exhausted  as  to  be  insufficient  for 
carrying  on  work  for  another  year;  and  petitions  the  com- 
monwealth to  subscribe  to  one  hundred  additional  shares 
in  the  new  subscription  now  opened.  In  response  to  this 
memorial  the  assembly  passed  a  bill,  Dec.  20,  1790,  en- 
abling the  company  to  open  new  subscriptions  for  two  hun- 
dred shares,  in  addition  to  the  fifty-five  already  subscribed, 
and  directing  the  treasurer  of  the  state  to  subscribe  for 
one  hundred  shares  in  behalf  of  the  commonwealth;  but 
only  in  so  far  as  to  meet  the  subscriptions  made  by  private 
individuals.2  The  requisitions  on  the  two  hundred  addi- 
tional shares  commenced  April  i,  1792,  and  ended  Dec.  24, 
1795,  previous  to  which  time  the  whole  number  of  shares 
were  subscribed  for  under  the  law.  The  funds  of  the 
company  being  again  exhausted  in  1796,  loans  were  resorted 
to,  and  many  individual  proprietors  advanced  considerable 
sums  at  six  per  cent,  interest;  which  sums  were  later  re- 
paid.3 On  Dec.  26,  1795,  the  general  assembly  came  to 
the  relief  of  the  company  by  enacting  a  law  authorizing  the 
treasurer  of  the  state  to 

Advance  on  each   share  of  James  River  Company  held  by 

1  Memorial  of  Directors  of  James  River  Company  to  the  Legislature 
of  Virginia,  1790. 
'Hening,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  163-65. 
8  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1805,  p.  I. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  31 

the  state  a  sum  not  exceeding  thirty  dollars,  at  six  per  cent. 
interest,  to  be  reimbursed  from  tolls  before  any  dividend! 
shall  be  made  of  the  tolls  :  provided  one-half  the  sum  so  raised 
be  exclusively  appropriated  to  clearing  the  navigation  of  the 
river  through  the  Blue  Ridge  to  Crow's  Ferry.1 

From  1796  to  1801  the  company  employed  a  superintend- 
ent with  a  suitable  number  of  hands  to  prosecute  the  work 
of  improvement  on  the  main  bed  of  the  river  from  Crow's 
Ferry  to  Lynchburg,  particularly  through  the  mountain. 
In  1801  it  reported  the  navigation  as  being  nearly  complete 
in  that  part  of  the  river.2  Some  slaves  were  hired  from 
their  owners  to  work  for  the  company  at  fifteen  pounds  per 
annum,  which  was  about  fifty  per  cent,  higher  than  they 
could  be  hired  to  work  on  the  farms,  the  owners  conceiving; 
that  the  risk  to  the  health  and  life  of  the  slaves  was  greater, 
not  to  mention  the  increased  risk  of  their  running  away.8 
The  work  progressing  more  slowly  than  had  been  expected, 
the  Legislature  had  in  1793  passed  an  act  extending  by  six 
years  the  time  originally  granted  for  its  completion.*  There 
were  many  difficulties  and  vexations  encountered.  The  ex- 
pense had  proved  greater  than  anticipated,  and  for  years  the 
stockholders  received  no  dividends.  The  bonds  of  the  com- 
pany, however,  held  up  well,  and  were  exchanged  for  goods 
at  the  country  stores  at  from  fifteen  per  cent,  discount  to 
par,  though  below  10  per  cent,  discount  was  rare.5  The 
first  dividend  was  paid  in  1801,  being  three  per  cent.* 
Having  been  authorized  by  the  Assembly,  by  act  of  Dec.  28, 


(New  Series,  Richmond,  1835),  vol.  i,  p.  375. 

1  Letter  of  Wm.  Foushee,  President  James  River  Company,  to  Gov- 
ernor James  Monroe,  Journal  Virginia  Senate,  1801,  p.  15. 

8  Report  of  Henry  Lee  from  committee  to  examine  the  accounts  of 
the  James  River  Company,  House  Journal,  1790,  p.  131. 

4Hening  (New  Series),  vol.  i,  p.  242. 

5  Report  of  Henry  Lee,  op.  cit.,  p.  131. 

6  Letter  of  Wm.  Foushee,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 


32       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [272 

1797,  to  open  and  improve  the  branches  of  James  River, 
the  company  effected  some  improvements  on  North  river, 
towards  Lexington.  From  1801  to  1805  work  was  pro- 
secuted on  the  main  bed  of  the  James  below  Lynchburg, 
and  considerable  improvements  were  made  on  its  branches, 
chiefly  on  the  North  and  Rivanna  rivers.1 

The  company  began  to  charge  tolls  in  April,  1794,  half 
tolls  only  being  demanded  at  that  time;  but  in  1806  full 
tolls  were  charged.  To  Jan.  i,  1805,  the  company  had  re- 
ceived in  tolls,  for  the  first  twenty  years  of  its  existence, 
only  about  $65,000,  and  the  years  had  been  lean  for  the 
stockholders.  From  then  on,  however,  it  began  to  be  a 
profitable  investment.  Stock  was  at  par  in  1805,  and  the 
company  was  considered  a  prosperous  concern.  Its  capital 
stock  was  $210,000,  and  it  had  expended  up  to  this  time 
$136,000  on  the  works  of  improvement.2  The  tolls 
brought  increasing  revenue  as  the  James  River  valley  grew 
in  wealth  and  population.3  The  present  aspect  of  affairs 
was  favorable,  and  the  prospect  was  not  unpleasing.  The 
officers  of  the  company  in  1805  were  Wm.  Foushee,  presi- 
dent; and  Edward  Carrington,  George  Pickett,  Robert 
Gamble,  and  James  Brown,  directors.  Robert  Pollard  was 
secretary  and  treasurer ;  and  Hezekiah  Mosby,  toll-gatherer.4* 

1Hening    ('New  (Series),   vol.   ii,   p.    108;   also  Statement   of  James 
River  Company,  1805,  p.  2. 

a  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1805,  p.  4. 

3  The  nature  of  the  produce  brought  down  the  river  is  illustrated  by 
the  fact  that  in  the  year  1803,  the  James  River  Company  charged  tolls  on: 
16,917  hogsheads  of  tobacco. 
170,588  bushels  of  wheat. 
58,183  barrels  of  flour. 
34,248  bushels  of  corn. 

2,022  coal  boats  (maximum  capacity  of  a  coal  boat  about  1,000 bushels). 
Besides  a  variety  of  other  articles.    Statement  of  fames  River  Com- 
pany, 1805,  P-  3- 
'Ibid.,  p.  9;   also  Mordecai,  Richmond  in  Bygone  Days,  pp.  298-9. 


273]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  33 

By  1808,  when  Gallatin  made  his  famous  report  to  the 
United  States  Senate  on  roads  and  canals,  the  James  River 
Company  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  successful  in- 
ternal improvements  in  the  country.  Gallatin  speaks 
favorably  of  the  two  hundred  and  twenty  miles  of  river 
made  navigable  from  Richmond  to  Crow's  Ferry,  saying, 
"  The  natural  navigation  of  the  river  through  that  extent 
is  considered  as  better  than  that  of  any  other  Atlantic  river 
above  the  falls  ".*  He  describes  the  improvement  from  the 
falls  of  the  river  to  Richmond  as  follows : 

A  communication  has  been  opened  by  the  company  from, 
Westham,  at  the  upper  end  of  the  Great  Falls,  to  Shockoe  hill, 
in  the  city  of  Richmond  in  the  following  manner.  The  water 
is  drawn  at  Westham  from  the  river  into  a  canal  two  hundred 
yards  in  length,  at  the  end  of  which  boats  descending  34  ft. 
through  three  locks  re-enter  the  river,  and,  after  using  its 
natural  navigation  three  miles,  are  brought  by  a  canal  three 
and  a  half  miles  in  length  to  a  basin  on  Shockoe  hill,  where 
the  navigation  terminates  ....  The  canal  is  25  ft.  wide,  and 
admits  boats  of  8  tons  drawing  3  ft.  water.  The  locks,  8d 
ft.  long  by  1 6  ft.  wide,  are  of  solid  masonry;  but  the  cement 
is  defective.  The  aqueducts  have  been  thrown  across  valleys 
intervening  in  the  course  of  the  canal,  and  some  difficult  dig- 
ging was  necessary  on  the  side  of  the  hills  and  through  ledges 
of  rocks.2 

The  company  had  expended  up  to  this  time  (1808)  about 

Mordecai  states  that  Pollard  held  the  office  of  secretary  and  treasurer 
for  thirty  years,  from  1793;  and  that  Mosby  was  toll-gatherer  for 
thirty-seven  years,  from  1893,  ibid.  Foushee  retained  the  office  of 
president  till  1818,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Major  J.  G.  Gamble,  who 
held  the  office  about  a  year  and  was  succeeded  by  W.  Gary  Nicholas, 
ex-governor  of  Virginia.  See  Mordecai,  pp.  297-98. 

1Gallatin's  Report  on  Roads  and  Canals,  April  6,  1808.  American 
State  Papers,  Miscellaneous,  vol.  i,  p.  730. 

Ubid. 


34       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [274 

$231,000  in  effecting  improvements;  the  annual  tolls  were 
about  $16,750;  and  the  annual  repairs  amounted  to  $5,000. 
The  company  drew  an  additional  revenue  from  the  rent  of 
water  applied  to  mills  and  other  water-works  erected  along 
the  canal,  and  being  now  in  a  prosperous  condition  was  pay- 
ing dividends  of  about  twelve  per  cent,  on  the  original 
capital.1 

From  the  beginning,  however,  the  public  had  not  failed 
to  find  fault  with  the  company,  and  now  that  it  was  grow- 
ing prosperous  the  complaints  grew  louder  than  ever.  It 
was  urged  that  though  the  company  had  received  full  tolls 
since  Oct.  i,  1795,  it  had  not  removed  many  obstructions 
to  the  navigation  of  the  river;  and  that  the  bed  of  the  river 
was  not  "  so  cleared  as  to  be  well  capable  of  being  navi- 
gated in  dry  seasons  by  vessels  drawing  one  foot  of  water  ", 
as  demanded  'by  the  charter.  These  complaints  moved  the 
General  Assembly  to  pass  a  bill  Jan.  5,  1805,  declaring  that 
tolls  must  cease  unless  the  charter  was  complied  with,  and 
appointing  five  commissioners  "  to  view  the  situation  and 
report  to  the  executive."  2  The  commissioners  met  pre- 
paratory to  viewing  the  river,  but  "  owing  to  a  sudden  rise 
of  water,  they  were  prevented  from  effecting  the  object  of 
their  meeting  ",  and  their  time  was  extended.3  Neither  had 
they  found  opportunity  to  "view  the  river"  by  1808, 
when  their  time  was  again  extended,  and  two  other  com- 
missioners added.4  Neither  had  they  acted  in  1809,  when 
the  Legislature  passed  an  act,  Jan.  20,  extending  by  two 
years  the  time  allowed  the  company  for  improving  naviga- 
tion for  vessels  drawing  one  foot  of  water  in  dry  seasons; 

1Gallatin's  Report,  Am.  State  Papers,  Mis.,  vol.  i,  p.  730. 
•Herring  (New  Series),  vol.  iii,  pp.  154-55. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  323. 
4 1 bid.,  p.  404. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  35 

but  declared  that  the  company  would  be  "  allowed  five  years 
and  no  longer  "  for  clearing  and  improving  the  navigation 
of  James  River  and  connecting  with  tide-water,  thus  com- 
pleting the  work,  under  penalty  of  being  taken  over  by  the 
state  and  tolls  regulated  by  the  state.1  Finally,  the  com- 
missioners previously  appointed  to  view  the  river  having 
repeatedly  failed  to  act,  the  general  assembly  passed  a 
measure  Feb.  13,  1811,  appointing  seven  new  commission- 
ers, five  of  whom  performed  the  duties  designated  and  duly 
reported  to  the  legislature.2  The  commissioners  loaded 
a  trial  boat  to  draw  twelve  inches  of  water,  and  starting 
from  Crow's  Ferry  proceeded  to  view  the  river  on  a  trip 
covering  fourteen  days,  and  reported,  Oct.  26,  1812 : 

In  our  passage  down  the  river  we  have  carefully  noted  all  the 
obstructions  which  ....  we  believe  have  not  been  cleared 
and  improved  in  the  manner  stipulated  by  the  charter.  .  .  . 
It  is  due  to  the  James  River  Company  to  state  ....  that 
great  and  valuable  improvements  have  been  made  above  and 
through  the  mountain,  the  sluices  generally  being  made 
straight,  which  renders  navigation  easy  and  safe;  but  duty 
compels  us  to  state  also,  that  others,  particularly  below  the 
mountain,  are  so  crooked,  meandering,  and  shallow,  as  to 
render  the  navigation  difficult  and  dangerous,  and  not  such  in 
the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  commissioners,  as  is  contem- 
plated by  the  charter.3 

This  report  did  not  help  the  company  and  its  charter 
might  have  been  forfeited  at  this  time  but  for  the  fact  that 
war  with  Great  Britain  distracted  attention  from  its  affairs 
for  some  years. 

At  this  point  it  might  not  be  amiss  to  describe  the  evid- 

1  Virginia  Acts  of  Assembly,  1808-09,  PP-  38-39- 
Ibid.,  1810-11,  p.  64. 

1  Report   of   Commissioners    to   explore   upper   navigation   of   James 
River,  House  Journal,  1812-13,  pp.  25-27. 


36       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [2?6 

ent  policy  of  the  company,  and  to  indicate  the  broad  results 
that  grew  out  of  it.  It  was  primarily  a  river-improvement 
company  and  seems  to  have  had  no  ambitions  to  extend  its 
operations  to  the  wider  field  of  uniting  the  east  and  the 
west,  which  had  been  the  chief  purpose  in  the  mind  of 
Washington  and  others  in  1785.  Its  tolls  and  water-rents 
were  making  for  it  a  handsome  profit,  and  good  dividends 
were  being  paid  regularly.  From  the  standpoint  of  the 
private  stockholders,  what  more  could  be  desired?  The 
policy  of  the  company  was  plainly  to  make  it  a  paying  con- 
cern to  the  stockholders.  And  by  what  better  way  could 
this  desirable  object  'be  accomplished  than  by  charging  the 
limit  of  tolls  allowed  under  the  law,  and  keeping  down  ex- 
penses by  doing  the  least  work  on  the  improvement  that 
could  possibly  'be  done  without  forfeiting  the  charter? 
This  policy  delighted  the  stockholders,  who  drew  their 
dividends  regularly,  sometimes  as  high  as  16  per  cent.,  and 
congratulated  themselves  on  a  paying  investment;  nor  had 
any  desire  to  change  the  management.  But  it  angered  the 
public,  and  more  especially  those  who  lived  on  the  river,  or 
in  the  territory  tributary  to  it,  and  had  occasion  to  make  use 
of  it  in  bringing  their  produce  to  market.  They  com- 
plained often  and  loudly  that  the  company  was  not  giving1 
them  a  square  deal;  that  it  was  not  living  up  to  its  charter 
obligations ;  that  it  was  charging  high  tolls  and  giving  poor 
service;  and  in  general,  that  it  was  an  unsatisfactory  con- 
cern, interested  only  in  its  own  profits  and  neglectful  of  the 
public  welfare.  And  this,  too,  despite  its  high-sounding 
self-praise,  which  it  lost  no  opportunity  of  expressing. 
Bat  the  company  gave  scant  heed  to  these  complaints,  and 
went  forward  piling  up  dividends  for  the  stockholders. 
Occasionally  the  legislature,  prompted  thereto  by  sundry 
petitions,  memorials,  and  individual  complaints  from  the  in- 
habitants of  the  counties  bordering  on  the  river,  would 


277]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  37 

lose  patience  with  the  company,  prod  it  to  action,  and 
threaten  it  with  the  loss  of  its  charter.  Under  these  stimuli 
the  company  would  arouse  itself  to  effect  some  improve- 
ments of  a  minor  nature,  and  for  the  moment  complaints 
would  cease.  But  the  company  would  soon  return  to  its 
old  policy,  complaints  would  again  multiply,  and  again  the 
company  would  display  unwonted  energy  for  the  moment, 
only  to  relapse  speedily  into  profitable  inactivity.  Thus 
matters  drifted  along  during  the  decade  181020. x 

The  attitude  of  the  public  toward  the  James  River  Com- 
pany was  reflected  in  the  press  of  the  time.  An  illustration 
of  this  is  seen  in  the  following  article  from  the  Richmond 
Enquirer  by  a  contributor  signing  himself  "  A  Farmer  " : 

Do  the  public  know,  (if  not  it  is  high  time  they  should)  that 
there  has  been  for  some  years  past  comparatively  or  no  atten- 
tion paid  to  an  institution  whose  members  receive  more  money 
from  their  capital  than  is  received  from  any  other  capital  of 
the  same  size  in  Virginia.     I  am  told  that  between  fifteen  and 
twenty  per  cent,  is  annually  divided  among  the  stockholders; 
and  in  what  sort  of  condition  is  the  river  from  Richmond  to 
60  or  70  miles  above?  ...  To  my  certain  knowledge  there 
has  been   shipped   from  Lewis'   mill,   on  said   river,   in  one 
favorable   year,   between    15    and   20,000   bushels    of    wheat 
besides  tobacco  and  corn  to  a  considerable  amount.     In  what 
way  was  it  shipped?     I  answer,  if  good  tide  takes  place — if 
not,  the  planters  and  farmers  are  compelled  to  carry  it  to 
Carter's  Ferry,  ten  miles  below,  by  land — and  all  this  expense 
and  inconvenience  incurred  merely  for  want  of  labor  of  ten 
or  twenty  hands,  for  about  ten  days,  by  the  James  River  Co. 
I  have  been  for  many  years  in  the  habit  of  sending  produce  to 
Richmond  in  my  own  boats ;  last  winter  I  accompanied  them ; 
when  I  arrived  at  the  lock  gates  I  was  told  by  the  keeper  of 
them  that  nothing  was  more  common  than  to  see  boats  in 

*For  authorities  for  the  foregoing,  see  references  infra. 


38       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [2;8 

tolerable  tides  grounded  in  a  hundred  yards  or  perhaps  less, 
from  the  toll  gates;  all  which  he  had  often  represented  to 
persons  in  Richmond,  authorized  to  attend  to  these  matters, 
and  no  kind  of  notice  was  taken  of  it.1 

.  The  writer  then  goes  on  to  say  that  the  people  were 
grossly  imposed  upon  by  the  James  River  Company,  and 
he  wanted  to  see  abuses  remedied. 

The  company,  being  on  the  defensive,  issued  another  of 
its  rare  statements  as  to  its  condition  and  achievements,  in 
a  pamphlet  dated  Nov.  4,  1816.  After  setting  forth  that 
great  benefits  had  accrued  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  James 
River  valley  by  reason  of  the  reduced  expense  of  transpor- 
tation effected  by  the  company's  improvement  and  by  the 
enhancement  of  the  value  of  real  estate  in  the  communities 
bordering  on  the  river,  the  statement  described  briefly  the 
works  and  expenditures  of  the  company.  It  showed  that  by 
means  of  locks,  canals,  dams  and  sluices,  the  river  had  been 
improved  from  Richmond  to  Crow's  Ferry,  a  distance  of 
220  miles ;  and  that  the  total  cost  of  the  improvements  from 
their  beginning  to  Jan.  i,  1816,  amounted  to  $374,290.04, 
in  actual  money  expended,  but  that  if  the  capital  stock  of 
$140,000  and  $64,000  interest  were  added,  the  work  would 
have  cost  $578,290.04,  or  a  little  over  $2600  per  mile.2' 
The  tolls  from  1794,  when  tolls  first  'began  to  be  charged, 
to  January  i,  1816,  totaled  $346,458.96.  Rents  of  water 
and  ground  in  the  same  period  amounted  to  $43,601.59, 
making  the  total  revenue  of  the  company  up  to  that  time 
$390,060. 5  5. 3 

The  company  conceded  its  difficulty  in  preserving  at  all 
times  the  depth  of  water  required  by  the  charter,  especially 

lRichmond  Enquirer,  April  3,  1816. 

1  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1816,  p.  2. 

3  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1816,  p.  5. 


279]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  39 

in  dry  seasons;  and  the  liability  of  such  improvements  as 
wing-dams  and  sluices  being  destroyed  by  freshets.  It  was 
forced  to  admit,  also,  that,  "  The  great  dams  at  the  upper 
locks  and  entrance  into  the  canal  are  now  much  out  of  re- 
pair; but  every  effort  will  be  made  to  put  them  in  repair  at 
the  first  favorable  season  "-1 

On  the  whole  the  company's  statement  was  not  convinc- 
ing, and  failed  to  remove  the  doubts  of  its  critics  or  to 
silence  their  clamors.  Especially  did  it  fail  to  answer  the 
objection  that  it  was  making  large  profits,  but  giving  poor 
service.  The  company  showed,  it  is  true,  that  prior  to 
1802,  when  it  first  'began  to  pay  dividends,  it  had  lost  in 
interest  on  the  capital  invested  the  sum  of  $103,200;  but 
was  silent  as  to  the  handsome  profits  realized  since  i8o2.2 
The  public,  however,  remembered  nothing  of  the  lean  years 
of  the  company's  early  history,  but  its  more  recent  profits 
were  fresh  in  their  minds  and  seemed  very  unfair  in  view; 
of  the  inadequate  service  rendered.3 

1  Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1816,  p.  3. 

*Ibid.,  p.  6.  In  1817  Morris  Birkbeck,  an  Englishman,  visited  Virginia 
and  his  memoirs  throw  an  interesting  side-light  on  the  situation  along 
the  James  river.  He  says :  "About  25,000  hhds  of  tobacco  and  200,000 
bbls  of  flour  have  been  the  yearly  export  of  the  country  through  the 
hands  of  the  merchants  of  Richmond.  .  .  .  The  falls  of  James  River, 
extending  for  five  miles  above  'Richmond,  afford  admirable  mill  seats. 
There  are  several  fine  flour  mills;  some  of  them  turn  eight  pair  of 
stones,  and  can  grind  and  dress  1,000  bbls  of  flour  per  week.  To  grind 
25  bushels  of  wheat  per  day  is  reckoned  the  work  of  a  pair  of  stones.  A 
canal  is  formed  by  lockage  parallel  with  these  rapids,  by  which  produce 
is  brought  down  in  long  barges,  capable  of  containing  25  hhds  of 
tobacco.  Morris  Birkbeck,  Notes  on  a  Journey  in  America  from  the 
Coast  of  Virginia  to  the  Territory  of  Illinois  (.London,  1818),  p.  15. 

8  It  is  not  without  significance  that  the  attitude  of  the  public  towards 
corporations  was  similar  in  those  days  to  what  it  is  now.  The  James 
River  Company  was  the  strongest  corporation  of  its  time  in  Virginia, 
and  was  thought  by  its  patrons  to  be  a  soulless  affair  given  to  exploiting 
the  public,  a  dangerous  monopoly. 


40       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [2go 

These  complaints  against  the  company  for  imputed 
neglect  of  duty  and  violation  of  their  charter  "  were  most 
earnestly  and  perseveringly  urged  from  the  south  side  of 
the  river  and  the  Legislature  was  repeatedly  pressed  to 
charter  another  company  with  privileges  incompatible  with 
the  James  River  Company,  and  to  declare  its  charter  for- 
feited and  void."  On  Nov.  19,  1816,  a  petition  was  pre- 
sented to  the  House  of  Delegates  from  sundry  inhabitants 
of  Manchester  and  vicinity  praying  for  the  passage  of  a 
law  incorporating  a  company  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
"  a  safe  and  easy  navigaion  from  the  head  of  the  falls  to 
tidewater".2  On  Dec.  18,  1816,  the  House  listened  to 
petitions  from  sundry  inhabitants  of  Albemarle,  Nelson, 
and  Richmond  city,  complaining  of  the  failure  of  the  James 
River  Company  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  its  charter, 
and  praying  redress.3  The  only  immediate  effect  of  these 
petitions  was  still  further  to  weaken  the  company  in  the 
estimation  of  the  public.  But  the  company  went  fatuously 
on,  disregarding  the  danger  signals. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature  the  attack  on  the 
company  was  renewed  by  an  unusually  strong  memorial 
from  the  counties  of  Chesterfield,  Powhatan,  and  Cumber- 
land, and  the  town  of  Manchester,  under  date  of  Dec.  4, 
1817.  This  petition  declared  that: 

All  the  country  above  the  Falls  contiguous  to  James  River  is- 
greatly  interested  in  the  establishment  of  a  canal  on  thel 
south  side  thereof,  inasmuch  as  it  will  not  only  destroy  an 
odious  monopoly  by  affording  the  planter,  the  farmer,  and 
the  merchant  of  the  upper  country  a  choice  of  markets,  but 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  State  Convention  of  1829-30^. 
p.  289- 

*  House  Journal,  1815-16,  p.  32. 
*Ibid.,  p.  97. 


2gl]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  41 

....  will  ensure  to  them  at  all  seasons  of  the  year  a  far 
more  constant,  easy  and  safe  navigation  than  they  have1 
hitherto  had  ....  At  some  times  the  present  canal  can 
hardly  be  navigated  by  empty  boats;  at  other  times  the  locks 
are  out  of  order,  and  not  unfrequently  the  navigation  is  haz- 
ardous. Your  petitioners  are  impressed  with  the  belief  that 
for  the  cure  of  these  evils  no  remedy  would  be  so  prompt  and 
infallible  as  competition.1 

This  petition  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Roads 
and  Internal  Navigation  of  the  House,  and  on  Dec.  26,  1817, 
the  committee  brought  in  a  report.  The  report  stated  that 
the  committee  had  listened  to  much  testimony  to  prove  that 
the  James  River  Company  had  not  complied  with  the  terms 
of  their  charter;  but  inasmuch  as  an  inquiry  into  this  ques- 
tion would  be  more  properly  before  the  judiciary  than  be- 
fore the  Legislature,  "  resolved  that  the  petition  be  re- 
jected." The  petitioners  sought  to  have  the  motion  amended 
to  the  effect  that  the  company  had  violated  their  charter,  but 
the  amendment  failed  to  carry.  The  debate  on  the  motion, 
however,  had  revealed  considerable  opposition  to  the  com- 
pany in  the  Legislature.2 

The  opposition  gathered  force  as  the  session  of  the  legis- 
lature advanced.  The  house  appointed  another  committee 
to  inquire  further  into  the  affairs  of  the  company,  with 
special  reference  to  the  charge  of  non-compliance  with  the 
charter.  This  committee  reported  that  the  company  had 
not  complied  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  charter, 
and  recommended  that  the  Attorney  General  "  be  directed  to 
institute  the  proper  proceedings  against  it  for  such  non- 
compliance  in  some  court  authorized  to  take  cognizance  of 
the  subject."  This  recommendation  was  adopted  by  the 

1  Petition  of  Chesterfield,  Powhatan,  and  of  Cumberland  Counties,  and 
of  Manchester,  Dec.  4,  1817. 
*House  Journal,  1816-17,  p.  109. 


42       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [2&2 

house  on  Feb.   24,    iSiS.1     On  the  next  day  the   senate 
adopted  the  following  resolution: 

Whereas,  it  is  alleged  that  the  James  River  Company  have 
failed  to  perform  the  conditions,  on  which  they  were  author- 
ized by  the  laws  regulating  their  charter  to  demand  and  re- 
ceive tolls,  and  it  is  desirable  to  ascertain  by  legal  proceedings, 
whether  such  allegations  be  true  or  not,  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  attorney  general 
to  institute  the  proper  proceedings  against  the  said  company, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  truth  of  the  allegation 
aforesaid,  and  to  prosecute  such  proceedings  to  a  judgment, 
as  soon  as  may  be.  .  .  . 

Resolved  further,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Board 
of  Public  Works  to  take  such  measures  as  may  to  them  seem 
best,  either  in  conjunction  with  the  James  River  Company  or 
otherwise,  to  cause  an  accurate  survey  to  be  made  of  James 
River  and  its  branches,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
best  means  of  improving  the  navigation  thereof.  .  .  .z 

This  resolution  was  agreed  to  by  the  House  the  same 
day,  and  in  pursuance  thereof  the  Attorney  General,  Sept. 
24,  1818,  obtained  a  rule  from  the  superior  court  of  law 
for  the  county  of  Henrico,  against  the  James  River  Com- 
pany, commanding  its  officers  to  appear  before  the  court  to 
show  cause  why  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a  writ  quo 
warranto  should  not  be  filed  against  the  company,  to  nullify 
and  vacate  their  charter  and  to  prevent  their  receiving  tolls.8 
The  charges  specified  against  the  company  were,  that  they 
had  failed  to  make  the  river  navigable  in  dry  seasons  by 
vessels  drawing  one  foot  of  water  at  least;  that  they  had 
suffered  the  navigation  to  be  obstructed  by  rocks,  gravel, 

1  House  Journal,  1817-18,  p.  216. 
1  Senate  Journal,  1817-18,  p.  170. 

'Memorial  of  the  cultivators  of  tobacco  in  the  'Counties  bordering  on 
James  River  and  Its  Branches,  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  7,  1830. 


283]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  43 

and  other  obstructions,  which  rendered  navigation  difficult 
and  even  dangerous;  and  that  they  had  failed  to  make  the 
canal  from  the  falls  into  Richmond  capable  of  carrying 
traffic  according  to  the  terms  specified  in  the  charter.1 

Many  witnesses  appeared  against  the  company,  and  gave 
damaging  evidence.  The  company  likewise  produced  num- 
erous witnesses,  the  tendency  of  whose  testimony,  however, 
"  was  not  to  show  that  they  had  discharged  their  duties, 
but  to  afford  an  excuse  for  non-performance."  The  de- 
fense of  the  company  was  founded  on  the  impracticability  in 
dry  seasons  of  making  the  bed  of  the  river  the  required 
depth,  and  the  effect  of  floods,  at  other  times,  sweep-- 
ing  away  their  improvements  and  rendering  their  utmost 
endeavors  to  comply  literally  with  the  charter  unavailing.2 
The  superior  court  of  Henrico  directed  the  rule  to  be  made 
absolute  and  an  information  to  be  lodged  against  the  com- 
pany. But  while  the  prosecution  was  pending,  an  arrange- 
ment was  entered  into  with  the  James  River  Company 
which  resulted  in  an  act  of  Legislature,  Feb.  17,  1820,  by 
which  the  state  became  the  purchaser  of  the  charter  of  the 
company,  and  the  prosecution  against  it  was  dismissed.3 

By  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Feb.  17,  1820,  the  state 
succeeded  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  James  River 
Company,  and  assumed  control  of  its  works  as  a  state  enter- 
prise. By  the  terms  of  the  purchase  the  state  assured  to 
the  stockholders  a  dividend  of  twelve  per  cent,  per  annum 
on  the  original  value  of  the  stock  until  the  year  1832,  and 
fifteen  per  cent,  forever  afterwards.4 

1  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  7,  1830. 

*Ibid. 

*Ibid.-,  also  Va.  Acts,  1819-20,  pp.  39-47. 

4 House  Journal,  1834-5,  p.  13;  Va.  Acts,  1819-20,  pp.  39-47.  Before 
the  quo  warranto  proceedings  against  the  company,  its  stock  was  selling 
at  $400  per  share;  but  in  consequence  of  the  prosecution  the  stock  de- 


44       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [284 

The  James  River  Company  as  a  private  corporation, 
chartered  in  1785,  went  out  of  existence  in  1820,  when  its 
rights  and  interests  were  transferred  to  the  commonwealth; 
and  it  entered  upon  a  new  phase  of  its  career  as  a  state  en- 
terprise. The  steps  by  which  this  change  was  effected  were 
of  such  consequence  as  to  call  for  more  extended  treatment 
in  the  succeeding  chapter,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  change  was  the  result  of  an  entirely  distinct  movement 
which  had  'been  gathering  force  for  some  years.  Before 
tracing  the  further  history  of  the  enterprise,  however,  it 
is  desirable  to  pause  long  enough  to  give  a  brief  summary  of 
what  the  company  had  accomplished  in  the  thirty-five  years 
of  its  history. 

Incorporated  in  1785  with  a  capital  of  $100,000  (divided 
into  five  hundred  shares  of  $200  each),  for  the  purpose  of 
clearing  and  extending  the  navigation  of  James  River  from 
tidewater  upwards  to  the  highest  point  practicable  on  its 
main  branch,  its  object  was  to  afford  to  the  adjacent  country 
an  easy  and  cheap  transportation  of  its  produce  to  market, 
and  if  possible  to  secure  a  portion  of  the  western  trade. 
And  back  of  it  all  was  the  hope  that  it  might  expand  into 
an  enterprise  that  would  furnish  a  through  line  to  the  west 
and  tap  the  resources  of  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  val- 
leys. A  subsequent  act  declared  Crow's  Ferry  in  Botetourt 
county  to  be  the  highest  point  practicable  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  first  act;  and  the  capital  stock  was  increased  to 
seven  hundred  shares,  of  which  the  state  became  a  subscriber 
for  two  hundred  and  fifty.1  The  James  River  Company 
constructed  a  canal  around  the  falls  of  James  River  from 

clined  to  a  little  over  $200  per  share  (the  original  subscription). 
Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  7,  1830.  Following  the  act  of  Feb.  17,  1820, 
the  stock  immediately  recovered  to  $400  per  share,  and  later  advanced  to 
$500  per  share,  as  the  result  of  the  guaranteed  dividends  of  12%  and 
15%.  House  Journal,  1834-5,  p.  13. 
1  House  Journal,  1834-35,  p.  13. 


285]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  45 

Westham  to  tidewater,  a  distance  of  seven  miles.  The  rest 
of  the  improvements  effected  consisted  in  clearing  the  river 
of  obstructions  from  Westham  to  Crow's  Ferry,  at  the 
mouth  of  Looney's  Creek,  in  Botetourt  county,  a  distance 
of  about  two  hundred  and  twenty  miles;  but  at  no  time 
were  any  improvements  effected  beyond  that  point.  Some- 
thing was  done  toward  improving  the  navigation  of  cer- 
tain branches  of  James  River,  such  as  the  Rivanna,  the 
Willis,  and  the  North  River  to  Lexington.  The  operations 
of  the  company  were  never  on  an  extensive  scale,  and  were 
the  object  of  persistent  complaints  on  the  part  of  the  in- 
habitants along  the  river.1  Unlike  most  similar  enter- 
prises in  the  state  and  elsewhere,  the  company  was  a  finan- 
cial success,  its  prosperity  increasing  with  the  years.  A) 
report  of  its  receipts  and  disbursements  for  the  last  year 
of  its  operation  shows  that  its  receipts  for  1820  were  $33,- 
731,95.  Its  disbursements  for  that  year  for  salaries  of 
officers  and  employees,  interest  on  money  borrowed,  and 
dividends,  amounted  to  $26,577.57,  leaving  a  surplus  of 
$7,144.38.  The  report  also  shows  that  the  company  paid 
a  dividend  of  twelve  per  cent,  that  year.  The  capital  stock 
was  $140,000,  of  which  one  half  was  owned  by  the  state.2 
The  principal  articles  brought  down  the  river  from  about 
1815  to  1820  were  tobacco,  wheat,  corn,  flour,  coal,  iron  ore, 
stone,  timber,  and  pork.  The  principal  commodities  carried 
up  the  river  were  articles  of  merchandise.  The  tolls  in 
effect  in  1820  were,  for  a  ton  of  2,000  pounds,  15 

1  Report  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  vol.  vi,  1830-31,  pp.  463-64; 
also  Report  of  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company,  1860,  p.  667. 

*  House  Journal,  i82O,-2i,  pp.  118-19.  The  state  subscribed  100  shares 
in  the  act  of  incorporation  in  1785;  then  100  shares  to  be  vested  in 
Washington;  then  by  act  of  Dec.  20,  1790,  100  additional  shares;  and 
finally  purchased  50  more,  making  350  in  all,  or  $70,000  of  the  capital 
stock.  C.  Crozet,  Outline  of  Improvements  in  the  State  of  Virginia 
<Phila.,  1848),  p.  20. 


46       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [286 

cents  for  drygoods,  15  cents  for  groceries,  4.8  cents  for 
tobacco,  14  cents  for  flour,  8  cents  for  wheat,  3.9  cents  for 
corn,  3.9  cents  for  oats,  13  cents  for  bar  iron,  4.4  cents  for 
pig  iron,  2.5  cents  for  lime,  15  cents  for  salt,  and  2.4  cents 
for  coal.  These  tolls  had  no  reference  to  distance.  The 
amount  of  toll  was  the  same  whether  the  article  was  trans- 
ported from  Westham,  or  Maiden's  Adventure,  or  Lynch- 
burg.1 

It  had  become  evident  that  the  scale  of  improvements  car- 
ried on  by  the  James  River  Company  was  not  adapted  to 
the  growing  needs  of  the  country.  It  was  desired  to  im- 
prove the  navigation  of  James  River  beyond  Crow's  Ferry 
to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek;  to  make  a  road  thence  to 
the  head  of  navigation  of  the  Kanawha  River ;  and  to  make 
the  Kanawha  navigable  from  the  falls  of  that  river  to  the 
Ohio.  But  as  their  charter  imposed  no  such  obligations 

1 Twenty-sixth  Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  p.  728. 
The  tolls  on  the  James  River  Canal  for  the  year  1820  were  as  follows : 

Parts  of  a  dojlar 

Every  pipe  or  hhd  of  wine  containing  over  65  gallons 45-62 

Every  hhd  of  rum  or  other  spirits  36-72 

Every  hogshead  of  tobacco  30-72 

For  casks  of  linseed  oil,  the  same  as  spirits 

Wheat,  peas,  beans  or  flax  seed,  per  bushel 5-288 

Indian  corn,  or  other  grain,  or  salt  per  bushel 2^-288 

Pork,  per  barrel 15-72 

Beef,  per  barrel  10-72 

Flour,  per  barrel 30-288 

Copper,  lead  or  other  ore,  other  than  iron  ore,  per  ton 60-72 

Stone  or  iron  ore,  per  ton 12—72 

Lime,  per  hundred  bushels 3^-72 

Pipe  staves,  per  hundred 6-72 

Plank,  or  scantling,  per  hundred  cubic  feet 25-72 

Other  timber,  per  hundred  cubic  feet 55^288 

Every  boat  or  vessel  which  has  not  commodities  on  board 

to  yield  so  much  1-3-72 

Ibid.,  p.  733. 


287]  THE  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  47 

on  the  James  River  Company,  it  was  necessary  to  enter  into 
a  new  arrangement  to  effect  the  desired  improvements,  and 
this  the  state  did  by  the  act  of  Feb.  17,  1820;  and  with  this 
act  the  James  River  Company  as  a  private  corporation 
passed  out  of  existence.1 

1  The  organization  of  the  James  River  Company  as  it  existed,  1785- 
1820,  is  frequently  styled  "The  Old  James  River  Company"  in  the 
literature  bearing  on  it  to  distinguish  it  from  the  James  River  Com- 
pany under  the  compact,  and  under  exclusive  state  control,  which  suc- 
ceeded it  in  1820  and  1823,  respectively;  and  is  also  loosely  used  to 
distinguish  the  James  River  Company  in  all  stages  of  its  career  from 
the  more  important  James  (River  and  Kanawha  Company,  which  took 
over  its  works  in  1835. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY;  OR  THE  JAMES 
RIVER  COMPANY  AS  A  STATE  ENTERPRISE 

(1820-1835) 

THE  public  had  been  dissatisfied  with  the  scope  of  the 
work  of  the  James  River  Company  no  less  than  with  the 
manner  in  which  that  work  had  been  carried  forward 
within  the  limits  of  the  charter.  Always  there  was  the 
ideal  of  a  through  line  to  the  west,  and  this  persisted  despite 
the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  realization.  Especially  was 
the  rapidly  developing  region  west  of  the  Alleghanies  con- 
cerned with  this  phase  of  the  problem;  while  only  less  in- 
terested were  the  more  farsighted  men  in  eastern  Virginia, 
who  were  enchanted  by  the  conception  of  a  grand  scheme 
of  internal  improvements  extending  from  the  Virginia  capes 
to  the  Mississippi  and  cementing  the  east  and  the  west  by 
political  and  commercial  ties.  When  it  is  recalled  that  the 
only  means  of  transportation  in  those  early  days,  other 
than  by  water,  consisted  of  imperfectly  constructed  mud 
roads  over  which  bulky  products  like  wheat  and  corn  could 
not  be  transported  at  a  profit  beyond  a  hundred  miles  at 
most,  it  is  easy  to  see  the  intense  interest  in  the  subject  of 
internal  improvements  felt  by  our  forefathers.  First  came 
the  river-improvement  era;  then  the  turnpike  movement;1 
then  the  canal  movement ;  and  lastly  the  railroad.  Nobody 
in  those  times  could  foresee  the  railroad,  but  the  most  far- 
sighted  soon  began  to  have  visions  of  improved  transporta- 
tion facilities  through  canals  as  a  cheap,  easy  and  safe  means 
48  [288 


289]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  49 

of  communication;  and  the  enthusiasm  for  canal-building1 
in  the  twenties  and  thirties,  and  even  in  the  forties  when 
the  railroad  had  demonstrated  its  practicability,  was  tremen- 
dous. 

Leaders  in  Virginia  thought  that  the  Old  Dominion  was 
especially  favored  in  having  rivers  flowing  both  eastward 
and  westward,  with  only  a  short  distance  between  their 
head-waters.  To  them  it  appeared  eminently  desirable  to 
unite  the  James  River,  the  main  commercial  artery  of  the 
state  east  of  the  Alleghanies,  with  the  Great  Kanawha,  the 
main  commercial  artery  of  the  state  west  of  the  Alleghanies, 
by  a  turnpike  road,  thereby  affording  a  through  line  of 
communication  to  the  Ohio,  and  down  the  Ohio  to  the 
Mississippi.  It  was  also  thought  that  Virginia  occupied  a 
peculiarly  favorable  and  strategic  location  as  regards  the 
Union  at  large,  and  that  if  the  contemplated  improvement 
could  be  carried  out,  the  Virginia  line  would  be  the  great 
central  route  from  the  east  to  the  west.  True,  nothing  was 
done  for  a  time  to  carry  out  this  conception  as  a  practical 
proposition,  because  admittedlly  the  expense  would  be  great 
and  the  difficulties  to  be  encountered  would  be  formidable; 
and  the  James  River  Company  was  not  ambitious  to  further 
the  movement  in  its  larger  aspects.  But  a  well-voiced 
demand  of  the  public  and  the  appointment  of  various  com- 
missions by  the  Legislature  to  investigate  the  subject  attest 
its  interest  in  the  minds  of  the  people. 

The  General  Assembly,  on  Feb.  2,  1811,  adopted  a  reso- 
lution appointing  five  commissioners  to  view  James  River 
from  the  upper  end  of  the  canal  to  the  highest  point  of 
navigation  at  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek;  to  mark  the 
most  practicable  route  from  Dunlop's  Creek  to  Greenbrier 
river;  and  to  view  that  river  to  its  mouth,  as  well  as  the 
New  River  to  the  great  falls  of  the  Kanawha.1  A  majority1 

1  Va.  Acts,  1810-11,  pp.  121-22. 


£0       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [290 

of  the  commissioners  appointed  under  this  resolution  met 
at  Lexington  July  19,  1811,  and  authorized  the  building  of 
a  suitable  boat  and  employment  of  persons  to  navigate  it. 
No  provision  having  been  made  by  the  Assembly  for  de- 
fraying their  expenses,  the  commissioners  each  advanced 
$50  to  meet  immediate  needs.  These  measures  were  the 
extent  of  the  commission's  services,  however,  for  it  failed 
to  act  further.1 

At  its  next  session  the  Assembly,  by  act  of  Feb.  15,  1812, 
appointed  a  new  commission,  consisting  of  twenty-two  com- 
missioners, headed  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall : 

To  view  James  River  from  the  town  of  Lynchburg  to  the 
mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  and  to  mark  out  the  best  and 
most  direct  way  from  the  mouth  of  said  creek  to  the  most 
convenient  navigable  point  of  Greenbrier  river,  and  to  view 
that  river  to  its  junction  with  New  River,  to  the  falls  of  the 
Great  Kanawha.  The  said  commissioners  ....  are  further 
directed  to  make  a  report  of  their  proceedings  to  the  next 
General  Assembly,  stating  their  opinion  of  the  practicability 
of  making  the  said  rivers  navigable,  the  probable  expense 
thereof,  and  the  prospect  of  advantage  therefrom,  to  the 
states  of  Kentucky  and  Ohio  and  to  the  United  States,  with 
any  information  which  they  may  deem  important.  And  be 
is  further  enacted,  That  the  sum  of  $750  be  appropriated  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  this  undertaking,  and  the  expenses 
which  have  accrued  under  the  last  General  Assembly.2 

1  House  Journal,  1811-12,  p.  8.  The  commissioners  were  W.  C. 
Nicholas,  James  Breckenridge,  Wm.  Carruthers,  Andrew  Donolly,  Jr., 
and  W.  J.  Lewis.  The  failure  of  the  commission  to  act  further  was 
due  to  the  ill  health  of  Mr.  Carruthers,  the  public  engagements  of 
Gen.  Breckenridge,  and  the  necessity  Mr.  Nicholas,  the  chairman,  "was 
under  of  withdrawing  from  that  service  in  consequence  of  an  accident 
by  which  he  had  been  personally  disabled  to  walk  or  to  ride  horse- 
back any  distance,"  ibid. 

*Va.  Acts,  1811-12,  pp.  51-52.  The  commissioners  appointed  under 
this  act  were  John  Marshall,  chairman,  Andrew  Burns,  Oliver  Towles, 


291]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  ^ 

Great  importance  was  attached  by  the  Legislature  to  the 
appointment  of  this  commission,  as  evidenced  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  men  composing  it,  who  were  among  the  fore- 
most in  the  commonwealth.  The  commissioners  who  acted 
were  John  Marshall,  James  Breckenridge,  William  Lewis, 
James  McDowell,  William  Carruthers,  and  Andrew  Alexan- 
der. They  made  a  thorough  investigation  and  on  Dec.  26, 
!i8i2,  submitted  to  Governor  James  Barbour  an  elaborate 
report,  which  was  laid  before  the  General  Assembly  Dec. 
30,  1812. *  As  this  report  was  epochal  and  possesses  feat- 
ures of  unusual  interest,  it  is  deemed  desirable  to  go  into 
it  in  considerable  detail. 

The  commissioners  met  at  Lynchburg  Sept.  i,  1812,  and 
the  necessary  preparations  having  been  made,  began  at  the 
bridge  at  Lynchburg  to  view  James  River  and  to  take  its 
level  by  sections  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek.  They 
proceeded  up  the  river  in  a  boat  from  Lynchburg  to  Crow's 
Ferry,  or  Beal's  Bridge  as  it  was  now  beginning  to  be  called, 
which  was  the  highest  point  embraced  in  the  improvements 
effected  by  the  James  River  Company.  Thence  they  pro- 
Laurence  A.  Washington,  Gordon  Goyd,  David  Ruffner,  Henly  Chap- 
man, Elisha  MdComas,  John  Coalter,  Wilson  C.  Nicholas,  James 
Breckenridge,  Landon  Cabell,  Win,  Lewis,  Wm.  Carruthers,  Charles 
Yancey,  James  McDowell,  Charles  F.  Mercer,  John  G.  Gamble,  Edward 
Watts,  Thos.  L.  Preston,  Andrew  Alexander,  and  Allen  Taylor,  of 
whom  any  three  might  suffice  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  act. 

1  Report  of  Commissioners  to  view  certain  Rivers  (Printed  according 
to  a  joint  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly,  1816).  This  report  is 
also  found  in  the  Journal  of  the  H.  of  D.,  1812-13,  pp.  83-89,  in- 
clusive; and  in  the  Journal  of  the  H.  of  D.,  1828-29,  pp.  1-8;  and  as 
Original  no.  4,  Va.  vs.  W.  Fa.  (W.  Va.  Debt  Settlement)  Hied  as  an 
exhibit  for  the  complainant,  Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.,  October  term, 
I9G7,  39  PP-  >  it  also  appears  that  it  was  ordered  published  by  the  House, 
Feb.  14,  1814,  for  distribution,  but  the  writer  has  been  unable  to  find 
such  a  copy.  It  was  easily  the  most  famous  report  in  the  history  of 
Virginia  internal  improvements,  and  its  influence  on  the  thought  of 
the  time  was  profound. 


£2       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [292 

ceeded  to  Dunlop's  Creek,  a  distance  of  about  sixty  miles 
above  Crow's  Ferry  and  the  site  of  the  present  town  of 
Covington.1  From  Dunlop's  Creek,  the  highest  point  to 
which  it  was  thought  navigation  could  be  rendered  practi- 
cable, the  commissioners  proceeded  to  mark  out  what  ap- 
peared to  them  to  be  the  most  direct  route  for  a  turnpike 
road  over  the  Alleghanies  to  the  most  convenient  navigable 
point  on  the  Greenbrier  river  on  the  western  slope  of  the 
mountains.  The  route  recommended  lay  past  Bowyer's 
Sulphur  Spring  to  Anderson's  Ford  over  the  Greenbrier, 
at  the  mouth  of  Howard's  Creek,  which  was  practically  the 
direction  of  the  dirt  road  already  existing  over  the  moun- 
tains between  Dunlop's  Creek  and  Anderson's  Ford.  It 
was  thought  that  it  would  be  a  comparatively  easy  matter 
to  build  a  turnpike  road  through  this  region  "  since  the 
materials  for  a  turnpike  are  everywhere  convenient,  and 
not  more  leveling  will  'be  necessary  than  must  be  expected 
in  passing  through  a  mountainous  country."  2 

Starting  at  the  mouth  of  Howard's  Creek  the  commis- 
sioners proceeded  down  the  Greenbrier  in  the  same  boat  in 
which  they  had  ascended  the  James.  Progress  was  slow, 
owing  to  the  shallowness  of  the  river  caused  by  an  un- 
usually dry  season.  They  encountered  long  and  frequent 
shoals  and  considerable  falls.  Numerous  large  rocks  in  the 
bed  of  the  river  also  impeded  navigation  where  the  water 
was  low.  With  reference  to  the  navigation  of  the  Green- 
brier  the  commissioners  concluded : 

On  an  attentive  consideration  of  the  obstacles,  which  were 
found  by  your  commissioners  to  be  great,  while  the  river  re- 
mains in  the  state  in  which  they  viewed  it,  they  are  unani- 

1  Dunlop's    Creek    (or    Dunlap's    Creek)     enters    Jackson    River    at 
Covington,  about  280  miles  above  tRichmond  by  the  James-Jackson  route. 
*  Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  7~I4- 


293]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  53 

mously  and  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  its  navigation  may 
be  rendered  as  safe,  as  certain,  and  as  easy  as  that  of  the 
James,  at  all  times,  except  when  the  water  is  unusually  low 
....  A  sufficient  depth  may  be  attained,  with  the  exception 
of  a  short  period  in  a  very  dry  year,  to  swim  any  boat  which 
can  be  brought  at  the  same  time  down  James  river.1 

This  appears  to  have  been  an  exceedingly  optimistic  view 
to  take  of  the  navigable  possibilities  of  the  Greenbrier,  con- 
sidering that  it  took  the  commissioners  ten  days  of  arduous 
labor,  assisted  at  intervals  by  an  extra  force  of  men  and 
sometimes  by  horses  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  to  cover  the 
distance  by  boat  from  Howard's  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Greenbrier,  a  distance  of  only  about  forty-eight  miles.  But 
they  attributed  their  difficulties  to  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
dryest  season  of  an  exceptionally  dry  year,  and  thought 
that  in  the  month  of  June  the  distance  might  have  been 
traversed  in  a  single  day.2 

The  commissioners  reached  the  mouth  of  the  Greenbrier 
the  evening  of  Sept.  28,  spent  the  night  among  the  islands, 
and  the  following  day  entered  New  River.  The  New 
River,  or  that  part  of  the  Great  Kanawha  which  is  above 
the  mouth  of  the  Gauley,  presented  difficulties  essentially 
different  from  those  encountered  in  the  Greenbrier.  The 
supply  of  water  was  abundant,  but  "  the  velocity  of  the 
current  and  the  enormous  rocks  which  often  interrupt  it, 
the  number  and  magnitude  of  the  falls  and  rapids,  the 
steepness,  cragginess  and  abruptness  of  the  banks,  consti- 
tute the  great  impediments  which  at  present  exist  to  naviga- 
tion between  the  mouth  of  the  Greenbrier  and  the  Great 
Falls  of  the  Kanawha/' 3  Immediately  above  the  falls  of 

1  Report  of  Commissioners,   pp.  14-15* 

9  Ibid.,  p.  16. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  17-18. 


54       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [294 

the  Great  Kanawha  the  Gauley  river  unites  with  the  New  to 
form  the  Great  Kanawha.  These  falls  are  20  ft.  4  in.  high. 
Below  the  falls  is  a  deep,  smooth  basin,  and  the  Great 
Kanawha  presents  no  further  considerable  obstacles  to  navi- 
gation throughout  its  whole  course  to  the  Ohio.  Here  ter- 
minated the  expedition  of  Marshall  and  his  associates.1 

The  conclusion  reached  by  the  commissioners  with  re- 
gard to  the  rivers  viewed  was  that  both  the  Greenbrier  and 
the  upper  reaches  of  the  James  could  be  rendered  navigable 
without  incurring  extravagant  expense,  and  that  both  could 
be  navigated  to  great  advantage,  not  only  in  descending  but 
in  ascending  also.  But  with  respect  to  New  River  they 
were  not  so  sure.  Still,  they  were  impressed  by  the  fact 
that  the  boat  which  conveyed  them  "  passed  from  the  mouth 
of  Greenbrier  to  the  place  where  their  expedition  terminated, 
without  being  taken  out  of  the  water,  except  at  the  Great 
Falls  of  New  river,  and  at  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Kanawha." 
Canals  could  be  dug  around  the  falls,  they  thought,  and  the 
river  might  otherwise  be  rendered  navigable  at  ordinary 
seasons,  though  navigation  would  be  endangered  by 
freshets.  They  were  positive  that  "  New  river  may  be  re- 
lied on  with  certainty  for  the  transportation  of  articles 
from  east  to  west ",  but  were  less  confident  of  "  the  practi- 
cability of  using  this  channel  for  the  transportation  of 
articles  from  the  western  country  towards  the  rivers  which 
empty  into  the  Atlantic  ",  owing  to  the  velocity  of  the  cur- 
rent.2 

llbid.,  p.  20.  The  most  noteworthy  obstacles  to  navigation  encoun- 
tered by  the  commissioners  in  the  sixty  miles  traversed  between  the 
mouth  of  the  Greenbrier  and  the  great  falls  of  the  Great  Kanawha  were 
Brook's  Falls,  about  four  miles  below  the  mouth  of  the  Greenbrier,  and 
the  Great  Falls  of  New  River.  At  Brook's  Falls  the  water  descends 
13  ft.  6  in.  in  50  poles;  at  the  Great  Falls  of  New  River  the  water 
falls  perpendicularly  23  ft.  Vide  report,  passim. 

*  Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  21-25. 


295]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  55 

The  commissioners  submitted  the  following  propositions 
with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  New  river : 

First,  That  boats  impelled  by  steam  may  be  employed  success- 
fully on  New  river  (provided  there  was  sufficient  traffic  to 
justify  the  expense).  Second,  .  .  .  Resort  may  be  had  to 
horse  labor  (by  constructing  a  horseway  along  the  bank  of 
the  river,  which  would  be  expensive).  Third,  Should  neither 
of  these  expedients  be  deemed  eligible  ....  boats  may  be 
forced  up  the  current,  where  it  is  too  rapid  for  oars  and  too 
deep  for  poles,  by  the  aid  of  chains  fastened  in  the  rocks  on 
the  banks.1 

With  respect  to  the  expense  involved  in  improving  the 
rivers  viewed  and  in  building  the  connecting  road  over  the 
mountains,  the  estimates  of  the  commissioners  varied  from 
$190,000  to  $6oo,ooo.2  The  mountain  road  from  Dunlop's 
Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Howard's  Creek,  where  began  the 
navigation  of  the  Greenbrier,  was  twenty-eight  miles  in 
length,  and  there  were  "  no  peculiarities  attending  this  route, 
which  will  render  any  plan  the  Legislature  may  prefer  for 
turn-piking  it,  more  costly  in  its  application  to  this  road, 
than  to  others  which  have  been  constructed  in  various  parts 
of  the  United  States."  3 

As  to  the  advantages  which  might  be  expected  to  result 
from  effecting  the  desired  improvements,  the  commissioners 
were  of  the  opinion  that : 

Should  the  navigation  of  James  River  be  carried  up  to  the 
mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  and  a  turnpike  road  be  made  over 
the  Alleghany  mountain,  although  nothing  further  should  be 

llbid.,  pp.  26-27.  These  suggestions  illustrate  forcibly  the  difficulties 
of  transportation  in  the  early  days;  cf.  the  custom  of  boatmen  on  the 
Mississippi,  in  coming  up  stream,  occasionally  to  tie  ropes  to  trees  on 
the  bank  and  pull  the  boat  forward  by  this  means. 

1  Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  29-30. 
.,  p.  30. 


56       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [296 

done,  a  considerable  impulse  will  be  given  to  agriculture,  and 
a  valuable  effect  produced  on  the  wealth  and  population  of 
a  considerable  tract  of  country.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
Bath,  a  part  of  Botetourt,  and  a  great  part  of  Greenbrier, 
Monroe,  and  perhaps  even  Giles,  would  find  a  real  interest 
in  searching  for  a  market  on  James  river  ....  Agriculture 
would  mingle  more  than  heretofore  with  grazing;  and  in- 
dustry would  flourish  when  the  reward  of  industry  would  be 
attainable.  .  .  .  An  increase  of  population  would  result,  not 
only  from  the  check  which  this  state  of  things  would  give  to 
emigration,  but  also  from  its  operation  on  the  inhabitants,  in 
other  respects.1 

lit  was  thought  that  these  advantages  would  probably  be 
extended  by  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Greenbrier 
also. 

The  larger  aspect  of  the  case,  as  well  as  the  more  diffi- 
cult, would  'be  involved  in  the  improvement  of  the  New* 
river,  but  the  advantages  derived  would  be  correspondingly 
great,  because: 

Not  only  will  that  part  of  our  own  state  which  lies  on  the 
Kanawha  and  on  the  Ohio  receive  their  supplies  and  send 
much  of  their  produce  to  market  through  James  river,  but  an 
immense  tract  of  fertile  country,  a  great  part  of  the  states 
of  Kentucky  and  Ohio,  will  probably  give  their  commerce  the 
same  direction.  All  that  part  of  the  state  of  Kentucky  which 
lies  above  Louisville,  and  all  that  part  of  the  state  of  Ohio 
whose  trade  would  pass  through  the  river  of  that  name, 
might  reasonably  be  expected  to  maintain  a  large  portion  of 
their  commercial  intercourse  with  the  Atlantic  states,  through 
the  James  river  or  the  Potomac.  Certainly,  in  a  contest  for 
this  interesting  prize,  the  states  through  which  those  rivers 
run  have  geographical  advantages,  the  benefits  of  which  they 
can  lose  only  by  supineness  in  themselves,  or  by  extraordinary 
exertions  in  others.  It  is  far  from  being  impossible  that 

1  Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  31-32. 


297]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  57 

even  the  southwestern  parts  of  Pennsylvania  may  look  down 
one  of  these  rivers  for  their  supplies  of  goods  manufactured 
in  Europe.1 

The  commissioners  appreciated  the  importance  to  be  at- 
tached to  the  growing  commerce  of  the  west,  and  thought 
that  Virginia  should  exert  herself  to  secure  that  portion  of 
it  which  naturally  belonged  to  her.  But  apart  from  its 
commercial  aspect,  they  thought  the  contemplated  improve- 
ment would  be  of  great  value  in  cementing  ties  of  friendly 
social  and  political  intercourse  with  the  west;  and  further, 
that  the  commercial  advantages  accruing  to  Virginia  would 
be  shared  by  her  in  common  with  the  states  of  Ohio  and 
Kentucky,  and  deserved  their  serious  consideration.2 

It  was  argued  by  the  report  that  the  west  needed  the  con- 
templated improvement  because  otherwise  it  would  be  shut 
up  to  the  use  of  the  Mississippi  as  a  means  of  importing 
outside  products.  To  limit  itself  thus  to  a  single  channel 
of  communication  would  be  undesirable  in  time  of  peace, 
while  in  time  of  war  their  whole  trade  might  be  annihilated 
by  the  blockade  of  the  Mississippi.  Furthermore,  a 
shorter  route  to  the  seaboard  was  desirable,  especially  for 
those  articles  not  intended  for  the  foreign  export  trade. 
For  these  products  at  least  the  Virginia  route,  as  being 
more  direct,  would  be  far  preferable.3 

1  Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  32-33. 

2  Ibid.,    pp.    33-34.     According   to    Beveridge,    "  Marshall's    report    is 
alive  with  far-seeing  and  statesmanlike  suggestions  ".     See  his  Life  of 
John  Marshall,  vol.  iv,  pp.  42-45,  for  his  account  of  this  tour. 

3 Report  of  Commissioners,  pp.  34-35.  The  commissioners  thought 
that  if  the  improvement  were  efficiently  carried  out  the  expense  of 
transporting  one  hundred  weight  from,  (Richmond  to  the  Ohio  river 
would  not  exceed  half  the  price  of  transporting  the  same  weight  from 
Baltimore  or  Philadelphia  to  the  same  place.  They  were  further  con- 
vinced that  the  Virginia  line  could  compete  successfully  with  the  pro- 
posed improvements  in  New  York,  in  so  far  as  the  commerce  tributary 
to  the  Ohio  was  concerned.  Ibid.,  pp.  37-38. 


58       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [298 
The  commission  concludes  its  report  by  saying : 

The  advantages  to  accrue  to  the  United  States  from  opening 
this  new  channel  between  the  eastern  and  western  states  are 
those  which  necessarily  result  to  the  whole  body  from  what^ 
ever  benefits  its  members,  and  those  which  must  result  to  the 
United  States,  particularly,  from  every  measure  which  tends 
to  cement  more  closely  the  union  of  the  eastern  with  the 
western  states.  In  those  operations,  too,  which  the  exigencies 
of  government  may  often  require,  this  central  channel  of 
communication  by  water  may  be  of  great  value.  For  the 
want  of  it,  in  the  course  of  the  last  autumn,  government  was 
reduced  to  the  necessity  of  transporting  arms  in  wagonsj 
from  Richmond  to  the  falls  of  the  Great  Kanawha.  A  similar 
necessity  may  often  recur.1 

The  report  of  the  commissioners  was  received  with  every 
mark  of  favor  -by  the  General  Assembly  and  by  the  public, 
and  it  appears  that  steps  would  have  been  taken  promptly 
to  undertake  the  improvements  suggested  but  for  the  war 
with  Great  Britain  which  broke  out  at  this  juncture.2  Fol- 
lowing the  war,  however,  interest  in  the  subject  revived, 
and  the  "  Report  of  the  Commissioners  "  was  printed  and 
widely  circulated.  Governor  Nicholas  in  his  message  to 
the  Assembly  at  the  session  of  1815-16  said,  "  To  improve 
the  navigation  of  the  James  to  its  source,  and  to  connect  it 
with  the  waters  of  the  Greenbrier  and  Kanawha  rivers  by 
a  turnpike  road  would  confer  incalculable  benefits,  political 
and  commercial."  8  The  Committee  on  Roads  and  Inland 
Navigation,  to  whom  this  part  of  the  governor's  message 
was  referred,  strongly  endorsed  the  contemplated  improve- 
ment in  its  report  to  the  Legislature.4 

llbid.,  pp.  38-39.  The  report  was  signed  by  John  Marshall,  James 
Breckenridge,  William  Lewis,  James  McDowell,  William,  Carruthers, 
and  Andrew  Alexander. 

3  House  Journal,  1813-14,  p.  190. 

*Ibid.,  1815-16,  p.  6.  *Ibid.,  p.  75- 


299]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  59 

On  Feb.  5,  1816,  the  General  Assembly  passed  an  act  to 
create  a  fund  for  internal  improvement.  This  was  an  act 
of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  economic  life  of  Virginia. 
The  fund  thus  created  consisted  of  the  shares  held  by  the 
commonwealth  in  the  various  internal  improvement  pro- 
jects in  the  state  and  in  the  Bank  of  Virginia  and  the 
Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia,  "  together  with  such  dividends 
as  may,  from  time  to  time,  accrue  to  such  shares  of  stock, 
and  such  bonus  or  premiums  as  may  be  hereafter  received 
for  the  incorporation  of  new  banks,  or  for  the  augmenta- 
tion of  the  capitals,  or  the  extension  of  the  charters  of  the 
existing  banks  ".1  The  fund  was  to  be  kept  distinct  from 
all  other  public  money,  and  was  to  be  applied  exclusively  to 
the  improvement  of  rivers  and  the  construction  of  canals 
and  public  highways.  The  act  further  created  the  Board 
of  Public  Works,  of  which  the  governor  of  the  common- 
wealth should  be  ex-ofhdo  president,  and  the  Treasurer  and 
Attorney  General  and  ten  other  citizens  should  be  directors, 
empowered  to  appoint  a  principal  engineer,  secretary,  and 
such  other  officers  as  the  board  might  deem  necssary.  The 
Board  of  Public  Works  was  authorized  to  subscribe,  in 
behalf  of  the  state,  to  such  public  works  as  the  Assembly 
might  agree  to  support ;  but  no  subscription  was  to  be  made 
to  the  stock  of  any  company  until  at  least  three-fifths  of 
the  whole  stock  should  have  been  otherwise  subscribed,  and 
one- fourth  actually  paid  in  or  secured  upon  real  estate.2 
This  act  gave  a  great  impetus  to  public  improvements  in 
Virginia  and  was  intimately  connected  with  their  operations. 
It  was  received  with  great  enthusiasm  over  the  state,  and 
favorable  notice  was  taken  of  it  elsewhere.3 

At  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly,    1816-17,  the 

lVa.  Acts,  1815-16,  sec.  2,  p.  35. 

5  Va.  Acts,  1815-16,  sees,  i,  3,  4,  7,  10,  n,  pp.  35-37. 

3  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  2,  1816;  March  9,  1816;  March  23,  1816. 


60       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [300 

Board  of  Public  Works,  in  its  first  annual  report  to  the 
Legislature,  recommended  that  correspondence  be  opened 
with  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  with  the 
states  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Kentucky,  to  invite  their  co- 
operation in  uniting  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Great 
Kanawha  with  those  of  the  James.  In  compliance  with 
this  recommendation,  the  General  Assembly  passed  a  reso- 
lution inviting  such  co-operation.1  The  board  also  directed 
an  inquiry  to  the  James  River  Company,  Oct.  1816,  re- 
questing to  know  if  they  would  undertake,  with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Assembly,  to  extend  the  navigation  of  the 
James  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  and  on  what  con- 
ditions.2 Upon  the  receipt  of  this  communication  the 
James  River  Company  replied  by  recommending  the  incor- 
poration of  a  new  company,  in  which  it  was  willing  to  take 
an  interest  if  satisfactory  tolls  were  provided  by  law/ 
Thereupon  the  Board  ordered  the  civil  engineer,  L.  Baldwin, 
to  make  an  examination  from  Crow's  Ferry  (Beal's 
Bridge)  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha  river  with  a  view  to 
opening  the  navigation  of  the  James,  Jackson,4  and  Kan- 
awha rivers,  and  the  propriety  of  a  connecting  road  between 
the  heads  of  those  rivers.  This  duty  was  duly  performed 
by  Mr.  Baldwin.5 

The  subject  stimulated  the  increasing  interest  of  thd 
people,  who  were  now  becoming  generally  aroused  on  the 
question  of  better  transportation  facilities.  On  Dec.  12, 
1817,  a  petition  was  presented  from  the  inhabitants  border- 
ing on  the  James  river  and  its  branches  and  from  those 

1  House  Journal,  1816-17,  p.  100;  ibid.,  p.  226. 
9  Ibid.,  doc.  A. 

*  House  Journal,  1816-17,  doc.  B. 

4  The  James  above  its  Junction  with  the  Cowpasture  river  is  known 
as  the  Jackson  river. 

*  Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  1817,  pp.  8-9. 


30l]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  6 1 

bordering  on  the  Greenbrier,  the  New,  the  Kanawha,  and 
the  Ohio,  praying  that  a  law  might  be  passed  extending  the 
scope  of  internal  improvements.  The  petitioners  desired 
the  General  Assembly  to  provide  for  opening  and  construct- 
ing a  turnpike  road  from  the  highest  point  of  navigation  on 
the  James  to  the  nearest  point  on  the  Great  Kanawha  sus- 
ceptible of  navigation;  for  improving  the  navigation  of 
the  latter  river  to  its  confluence  with  the  Ohio;  and  for  the 
liberal  investment  by  the  state  in  such  a  company.  It  was 
also  suggested  that  the  state  invite  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment to  become  a  stockholder  in  the  contemplated  en- 
terprise.1 On  Dec.  22,  1817,  a  petition  was  laid  before  the 
House  from  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Washington  College, 
proposing  a  more  efficient  plan  for  the  improvement  of 
the  James  river  "  than  that  hitherto  adopted  by  law,  and 
partly  carried  into  effect  by  the  James  River  Company."  2 
These  petitions  not  only  attest  the  lively  interest  now  taken 
in  internal  improvement  by  the  public,  but  incidentally  re- 
veal the  growing  dissatisfaction  with  the  results  accom- 
plished by  the  James  River  Company. 

The  Board  of  Public  Works,  in  its  second  annual  report 
to  the  Legislature,  again  strongly  endorsed  the  proposed 
extension  of  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the 
James  and  its  connection  with  the  improved  rivers  west  of 
the  Alleghanies  by  a  turnpike  road.3  It  also  ordered  a  new* 
survey  more  comprehensive  than  that  made  by  Baldwin. 
The  new  survey,  made  in  1818  by  Thomas  Moore,  was 
communicated  to  the  Legislature  in  a  supplemental  report 
by  the  Board  at  the  session  of  1818-19.  It  embraced  sur- 
veys, plans,  and  estimates  of  two  different  modes  of  im- 
provement— one  by  dams,  canals  and  locks;  the  other  by 

1  House  Journal,  1817-18,  pp.  34-35. 

2 1  bid.,  p.  60. 

^Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  1817,  pp.  8-9. 


62        THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [302 

sluice  navigation.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  former  was 
$1,512,8-26;  that  of  the  latter,  $i9i,42i.1 

On  Jan.  21,  1818,  the  House  Committee  on  Roads  and 
Inland  Navigation  brought  in  an  elaborate  report,  based 
partly  on  the  views  of  Marshall  and  his  associates  in  their 
famous  report  of  1812,  but  speaking  with  more  certainty  as 
to  ways  and  means.  The  committee  recommended  improve- 
ments on  the  Great  Kanawha  from  its  falls  to  its  mouth, 
estimated  to  cost  $100,000;  the  construction  of  a  turnpike 
road  from  the  falls  of  the  Great  Kanawha  to  the  mouth  of 
Dunlop's  Creek  on  Jackson  river,  estimated  to  cost  $500,- 
ooo;  and  the  improvement  of  the  James  and  Jackson  rivers 
from  Crow's  Ferry  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek  "  equal 
to  the  present  state  of  navigation  of  James  river  within  the 
Company's  limits,  at  estimated  cost  of  $400,000."  Lastly, 
the  committee  recommended  that: 

It  is  expedient  to  incorporate  a  company  for  improving  the 
navigation  of  James  and  Jackson  rivers  from  Crow's  Ferry 
to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  with  a  capital  of  $400,000; 
and  it  is  expedient  to  incorporate  a  company  for  the  construct- 
ing and  making  a  turnpike  road  from  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's 
Creek  to  Montgomery's  Ferry  below  the  Great  Falls  in  the 
Kanawha  river,  and  for  the  improving  the  navigation  of  that 
river  from  thence  to  the  Ohio,  with  a  capital  of  $6oo,ooo.2 

The  Board  of  Public  Works  now  entered  into  correspond- 
ence with  the  James  River  Company  and  proposed  that  the 

1  Supplemental  Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  1819,  pp.  5,  35,  39. 
Sluice  navigation  was  used  when  funds  were  not  available  for  costly 
improvement.  It  consisted  of  wing-dams  to  give  sufficient  depth  of 
water  over  the  shallows  and  to  distribute  the  fall  at  the  shoals  and 
ripples,  thereby  deepening  the  channel  where  necessary.  The  wing-dams 
were  sometimes  placed  at  right  angles  to  the  stream  and  sometimes 
oblique,  as  circumstances  might  require. 

1 House  Journal,  1817-18,  p.  141. 


303]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  63 

company  execute  the  improvement  on  James  and  Jackson 
rivers,  recommended  by  Thomas  Moore  and  the  improve- 
ment on  the  Kanawha  recommended  by  Baldwin,  and  con- 
nect the  two  by  a  turnpike  road.1  The  James  River  Com- 
pany stated  the  terms  on  which  it  would  consent  to  under4 
take  these  improvements,  as  follows:  The  capital  of  the 
company  to  be  augmented  by  the  addition  of  $1,500,000 
new  stock,  the  shares  of  existing  stock  of  $200  each  to 
be  rated  at  four  shares  of  $100  each  in  the  new  company; 
the  Board  of  Public  Works  to  subscribe  two-fifths  of  the 
stock  of  the  company ;  the  company  to  receive  dividends  of 
six  per  cent,  per  annum,  payable  semi-annually,  while  the 
work  was  in  progress,  and  after  the  completion  of  the 
works  on  James  river,  a  net  dividend  of  not  less  than  ten 
per  cent,  nor  more  than  fifteen  per  cent,  per  annum,  whether 
expended  on  the  eastern  or  western  waters,  or  on  the  road 
connecting  them.  Furthermore  the  tariff  of  tolls  on  James 
river  must  be  revised  to  produce  double  the  present  revenue, 
with  provision  for  a  progressive  further  increase  as  the 
improvements  advanced  up  the  river.  But  the  company 
refused  to  consent  to  the  modification  of  their  charter  to 
effect  these  improvements.2 

The  Board  of  Public  Works,  anxious  to  effect  the  im- 
provements proposed  and  conceiving  the  James  River  Com- 
pany to  be  the  best  agent  to  do  the  work,  acceded  in  prin- 
ciple to  these  extravagant  demands  and  recommended  to 
the  Legislature  the  passage  of  a  law  embracing  the  pro- 
posals made  by  the  company.3  This  communication  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Roads  and  Inland  Navigation, 
which  brought  in  a  bill  embodying  its  recommendations. 
The  bill,  however,  was  opposed  strenuously  on  the  floor  of 

1  Supplementary  Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  Jan.,  1819,  p.  6. 
*  Supplementary  Report  Bd.  Pub.  Wks.,  Jan.,  1819,  pp.  59,  64-65. 
*Ibid.,  p.  9. 


64       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [304 

the  House  as  'being  a  sort  of  unilateral  arrangement  in  the 
interest  of  the  James  River  Company,  whose  demands  were 
deemed  excessive,  and  justly  so.  The  Legislature  refused 
to  be  held  up  in  this  manner  by  the  company  and  proceeded 
to  defeat  the  bill.1  It  would  appear  that  the  James  River 
Company  shrewdly  made  their  demands  so  extravagant  as 
to  insure  a  non-compliance  with  them  at  the  hands  of  the 
Legislature,  and  that  they  were  well  satisfied  with  the  de- 
feat of  the  bill.  The  stockholders  had  no  cause  to  be  dis- 
satisfied with  the  existing  state  of  things,  their  stock  now 
being  worth  $400  per  share  on  the  market  and  regularly 
paying  handsome  dividends. 

After  the  failure  of  the  negotiations  with  the  James  River 
Company,  the  General  Assembly,  still  impressed  with  the  im- 
portance of  the  project,  adopted  a  resolution  later  in  the 
session  directing  the  Board  of  Public  Works : 

To  report  to  the  next  General  Assembly  the  best  practicable 
communication  for  the  purposes  of  trade  between  the  waters 
of  the  James  river  and  those  of  the  Great  Kanawha;  together 
with  an  estimate  of  the  probable  expense  of  such  plan  or  plans 
as  they  may  suggest;  and  that  they  procure,  in  addition  to 
the  services  of  the  principal  engineer  of  the  Board  of  Public 
Works,  another  skillful  engineer,  to  examine,  either  separ- 
ately, or  in  conjunction  with  the  said  principal  engineer,  the 
said  rivers  and  water  courses,  with  a  view  to  the  connection 
aforesaid,  between  the  eastern  and  western  waters  of  Vir- 
ginia.2 

The  new  survey  authorized  by  this  resolution  was  made 
during  the  summer  of  1819  by  Thomas  Moore,  state  en- 
gineer, assisted  by  Isaac  Briggs.  At  'the  suggestion  of 
Moore,  who  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to  conceive  the 

1House  Journal,  1831-32,  p.  4. 
3  Va.  Acts,  1818-19,  p.  104. 


-505]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  65 

idea,  the  scope  of  the  survey  was  extended  to  include  not 
only  what  had  been  authorized  by  the  Legislature,  but  also 
the  plan  of  an  independent  or  continued  canal  along  the 
James  River  from  Richmond  to  Covington.1  These  en- 
gineers, with  a  full  force  of  assistants,  surveyed  the  whole 
line  of  contemplated  improvements  from  the  head  of  tide- 
water at  Richmond  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha  at  Point 
Pleasant,  and  made  separate  reports.2 

The  reports  of  Moore  and  Briggs  were  communicated 
to  the  Legislature  during  the  session  of  1819-20  in  a  sup- 
plementary report  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  Jan., 
1820.  Governor  Randolph,  who  was  ex-ottcio  president  of 
the  Board,  accompanied  the  report  with  a  notable  message, 
in  which  he  said : 

The  skill  and  industry  of  two  able  engineers  ....  have  at 
length  demonstrated  this  grand  conception  of  the  Legislature 
to  be  practicable,  by  means  entirely  within  their  power.  .  .  . 
Capital  to  any  amount  may  now  be  borrowed  within  the  state 
....  to  execute  what  has  been  so  happily  conceived.  .  .  . 
Competition  with  other  states  of  the  Union  ....  is  encour- 
aged and  supported  by  the  consideration  of  the  peculiarly  ad- 
vantageous circumstances  which  a  more  happy  climate  and  a 
more  favorable  approach  from  the  sea  manifestly  afford  to 
Virginia.  The  inland  navigation  contemplated  will  be  sus- 
pended by  ice,  the  only  possible  obstruction,  not  every  year; 
and  then  one-fourth  of  the  time  only  which  must  be  experi- 
enced every  year  by  our  less  fortunate  rival,  besides  the  sea 
risks  on  the  tempestuous  lakes,  which  her  commerce  must  pass 
before  it  can  meet  ours  in  the  markets  of  the  western  states 
....  The  subject  is  now  mature  for  the  decision  of  the  Legis- 
lature.3 

1  House  Journal,   1831-32,  p.  5;   Supplementary  Report  Board  Public 
Works,  January,  1820,  p.  6. 
1  Ibid. 
1  House  Journal,  1819-29,  p.  144. 


66       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [306 

The  reports  of  the  two  engineers,  Moore  and  Briggs, 
concurred  in  a  recommendation  of  the  contemplated  scheme, 
and  of  a  continued  canal  on  the  margin  of  James  and  Jack- 
son rivers  as  a  part  of  the  line.  Moore's  estimate  of  the 
cost  of  the  project  was  $1,927,067,  while  that  of  Briggs 
was  $1,945,446.  They  were  both  of  the  opinion  that 
moderate  tolls  would  suffice  to  pay  the  interest  on  the 
capital  to  be  invested.1 

The  Board  of  Public  Works,  in  their  supplemental  report 
accompanying  the  reports  of  the  engineers,  strongly  en- 
dorsed their  views  as  to  the  value  of  the  proposed  improve- 
ment and  the  expediency  of  beginning  the  work  promptly. 
They  stated  their  belief  that  the  work  was  not  only  practi- 
cable, but  that  the  necessary  funds  to  finance  it  could  be 
procured  from  the  Fund  for  Internal  Improvement.  They 
recommended  to  the  General  Assembly  to  purchase  the  rights 
of  the  James  River  Company  and  to  place  the  enterprise  on 
the  footing  of  a  state  work  to  be  conducted  by  the  agents 
of  the  state,  on  state  account.2 

In  conformity  to  this  recommendation  of  the  Board  of 
Public  Works,  which  was  presented  to  the  Legislature 
Jan.  25,  1820,  the  General  Assembly  on  Feb.  17,  1820, 
passed  the  "  Act  to  amend  the  act  entitled  '  An  act  for  clear- 
ing and  improving  the  navigation  of  James  river '  and  for 
uniting  the  eastern  and  western  waters  by  the  James  and 
Kanawha  rivers  ".3  This  bill  provided  for  a  compact  be- 
tween the  commonwealth  and  the  James  River  Company, 
declaring : 

"  That,  if  the  James  River  Company  shall,  on  or  before  the 
fifteenth  day  of  March  next,  assent  to  the  provisions  of  this 

1  Sup.  Report  Bd.  Pub.  Wks.,  Jan.,  1920,  pt.  iii,  p.  109. 

3  Ibid.,  pt.  iv,  pp.  6-10. 

8 For  this  act  see  Va.  Acts,  1819-20,  pp.  39-47- 


307]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  67 

act  ....  then  shall  this  act  immediately  be  in  force;  and, 
shall  hereafter  be  considered  a  compact  between  the  common- 
wealth and  the  said  company;  subject,  however,  ...  to  such 
change  and  modifications  as  the  legislature  may  think  proper 
to  make;  Provided  that  no  such  change  or  modification  shall 
be  made  as  will  take  from  the  James  River  Company  their4 
right  to  the  dividends  ....  allowed  them  by  this  act ".  .  .  .* 

The  act  further  provided  that  in  the  event  the  James 
River  Company  assented  to  the  compact,  the  company 
should  promptly  commence  and  prosecute  to  completion  the 
following  works : 

1.  To  improve  the  navigation  of  the  Great  Kanawha  so  as 
to  render  it  navigable  at  all  seasons,   for  boats  drawing  at 
least  three  feet  of  water,  from  the  Great  Falls  to  its  junction 
with  the  Ohio. 

2.  To  improve  the  navigation  of  the  James  from  tidewater 
to  Pleasant's  Island  by  locks  and  navigable  canals,  affording 
at  all  seasons  of  the  year  at  least  three  feet  of  water  "  so  as 
to  navigate  conveniently  boats  carrying  1,000  bushels  of  coal ". 

3.  To  make  the  best  road  practicable,   at  an  expense  of 
$100,000,  from  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek  to  the  great  falls 
of  the  Great  Kanawha  river. 

4.  To  make  a  navigable  canal  and  locks,  in  continuation  of 
the  lower  James  river  canal,  from  Pleasant's  Island  to  the 
mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  affording  three  ft.  depth  of  water 
at  all  seasons  of  the  year. 

5.  To  make  safe  and  convenient  communications  from  the 
river  at  such  points  as  would  afford  ample  accommodation  to* 
the  trade  on  the  south  side  of  the  river.2 

The  law  made  adequate  provision  for  tolls  on  the  rivers 
and  on  the  road,  and  declared  that  "  the  road,  canals,  locks, 

llbid.,  sec.  i. 

*Va.  Acts,  1819-20,  sec.  ii,  p.  40. 


68       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [308 

dams  and  other  works,  with  all  tolls  and  other  profits  and 
emoluments  arising,  therefrom,  shall  be  vested,  and  the 
same  are  hereby  vested  in  the  said  company  as  agents  in 
trust  for  this  commonwealth."  The  writ  of  quo  warrant o 
then  pending  against  the  company  was  to  'be  dismissed  as 
soon  as  they  should  assent  to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 
The  treasurer  of  the  commonwealth  was  to  be  ex-ofhcio 
treasurer  of  the  company,  which  was  authorized  to  bor- 
row $200,000  annually  for  carrying  on  the  work  of  im- 
provement. A  portion  of  the  tolls  was  to  be  set  aside  to 
pay  dividends  of  12  per  cent,  per  annum  on  their  shares 
to  the  stockholders  of  the  old  James  River  Company  for 
twelve  years  on  their  original  par  value,  and  15  per  cent, 
forever  thereafter.1 

This  act,  dependent  upon  the  ratification  of  the  James 
River  Company,  was  to  be  binding  upon  the  state  when  so 
ratified,  and  its  most  significant  feature  was  that  the  com- 
pany for  the  future  should  'be  the  agent  in  trust,  holding 
for  the  benefit  of  the  commonwealth.  The  effect  of  it,  of 
course,  was  to  destroy  the  James  River  Company  as  an  in- 
dependent corporation,  and  to  make  it  merely  the  agent  of 
the  state  in  carrying  out  such  improvements  as  the  state 
might  determine  upon.  Nine  commissioners  were  to  be 
appointed  annually  by  the  Assembly,  for  superintending 
works  on  the  Kanawha  road  and  the  Kanawha  river;  and 
similarly,  for  the  James  and  Jackson  rivers.2 

The  compact  was  duly  ratified  by  the  company,  urged 
thereto  by  the  quo  warranto  proceedings  then  pending.  It 
now  organized  itself  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  re- 
cent law,  and  for  about  three  years  the  work  progressed 
with  considerable  vigor  upon  the  Kanawha  road,  the  Kan- 
awha river,  and  the  lower  James  river  canal.  The  results 

llbid.,  passim. 

*Va.  Acts,  1819-20,  sec.  xi,  p.  45. 


309]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  69 

accomplished,  however,  were  very  disappointing  to  the 
public,  partly  because  the  revenue  from  tolls  was  much  less 
than  had  been  expected,  and  partly  because  the  expense  in- 
volved was  far  beyond  the  estimates  originally  given.1  A 
large  income  had  been  expected  from  tolls  on  salt  in  the 
Kanawha  region  and  from  coal  in  the  upper  James  river 
region,  but  this  was  not  forthcoming.  The  estimates  of 
Moore  and  Briggs  had  placed  the  expense  of  a  continued 
canal  at  about  $7,000  per  mile;  whereas  the  actual  cost  of 
that  part  executed  by  1823  was  about  $20,000  per  mile. 
The  sections  of  the  state  not  benefited  by  the  improvement 
objected  to  the  heavy  expense  incurred  up  to  this  time,  and 
recoiled  at  the  prospect  of  still  heavier  expenditures  in 
future.2 

Complaints  arose  in  various  quarters  against  the  manner 
in  which  the  company  was  organized  as  well  as  against  the 
results  accomplished  and  the  expense  entailed.  Articles 
began  to  appear  in  the  public  press  voicing  the  complaints 
of  the  people.  A  correspondent  signing  himself  "  One  of 
Many  "  was  especially  vigorous  in  a  series  of  communica- 
tions to  the  Richmond  Enquirer*  He  admitted  the  utility 
of  the  enterprise,  but  found  fault  with  its  method  of  ex- 
ecution. He  claimed  that  the  execution  was  radically  de- 

1  House  Journal,  18311-32,  p.  9;  Proceedings  Fa.  Convention  of  1829-30, 
p.  287. 

*House  Journal,  1831-32,  p.  9.  The  science  of  civil  engineering  was 
then  in  its  infancy  in  America.  The  New  York  Canals  were  still  un- 
finished ;  while  those  of  Pa.,  Ohio,  and  the  C.  &  O.  Canal,  had  not  been 
begun.  Prior  to  about  1810  engineers  were  imported  from  Europe  for 
important  works.  Whitford  states  that,  "  When  a  man  was  needed  for 
preparing  plans  for  the  Erie,  there  was  no  professional  engineer  in 
America."  See  Noble  E.  Whitford,  History  of  New  York  Canals 
(Albany,  1906),  vol.  i,  p.  788.  Whitford  gives  an  interesting  account 
of  the  canals  as  a  school  of  engineering,  cf.  ibid.,  chapter  xxiv. 

3  Richmond  Enquirer,  issues  of  Feb.  6,  1823;  Feb.  n,  1823;  Feb.  13, 
1823;  Feb.  15,  1823. 


70       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [3IO 

fective,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  president  and  directors 
were  constantly  changing,  and  that  this  placed  small  re- 
sponsibility on  any  one,1  while  the  stockholders  by  whom 
they  were  elected  were  annuitants,  hence  not  particularly 
interested  in  the  work.  He  further  asserted  that  the  com- 
missioners were  neither  practical  nor  efficient  men,  and  that 
the  organization  of  the  agency  of  execution  involved  need- 
less delay  and  expense.  He  objected  that  the  officers,  being 
elected  by  the  stockholders,  were  independent  of  the  Legis- 
lature and  not  responsible  to  it  as  officers,  individually  or 
collectively  ,  "  yet  they  appoint,  direct  and  remove  all  sub- 
ordinate officers,  engineers,  etc."  He  concludes  that  the 
Board  of  Public  Works  is  the  proper  fiscal  and  executive 
agent  to  conduct  the  enterprise,  and  demands  that  the  com- 
missioners be  dispensed  with,  and  that  the  James  River 
Company  transfer  all  its  accounts,  papers  and  documents 
to  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  which  should  supply  and 
disburse  the  necessary  funds  and  superintend  the  work 
"  under  the  eye  of  the  Legislature  ".2  This  conclusion  was 
also  that  of  "  James  River  Farmer ",  who  insisted  on 
"  shaking  the  James  River  Co."  as  the  fiscal  agent  managing 
affairs.3  "Freeholder"  objected  that  the  law  of  1820; 
transferring  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  James  River 
Company  to  the  state,  was  at  variance  with  the  law  creating 
a  fund  for  internal  improvement,  in  both  principle  and 
policy.4  Thus  it  appears  that  there  was  considerable  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  existing  condition  of  things  and  a  well- 
voiced  demand  for  a  change. 

lThis  statement  was  not  sustained  by  the  facts,  as  John  Coalter  was 
president  of  the  James  River  Co.  throughout  the  whole  period  that  it 
acted  as  the  agent  of  the  state,  which  was  from  Feb.  29,  1820,  to  March 
27,  1823.  The  commissioners,  however,  were  elected  annually. 

*  Richmond  Enquirer,  Feb.  15,  1823. 

*Ibid.,  issue  of  Feb.  n,  1823. 

*Ibid.,  issue  of  Feb.  15,  1823. 


3i  i  ]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  yi 

The  other  side  of  the  controversy  was  given  by  "  Brind- 
ley  ",  who  showed  that  of  the  700  shares  of  the  James 
River  Company's  stock,  the  state  owned,  in  Jan.  1823,  427 
shares;  Washington  College,  100;  the  College  of  William 
and  Mary,  22 — making  a  total  of  549;  whereas  individuals 
owned  only  151  shares.  The  state,  owning  a  majority  of 
stock,  could  control  the  election  of  officers.  Of  the  $16,800 
paid  annually  as  dividends  to  stockholders,  individuals  re- 
ceived only  $3,624.  "  Brindley "  further  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  James  River  Company  had  only  a 
nominal  existence,  the  state  in  fact  being  the  "  James  River 
Company  "  and  as  such  choosing  all  the  directors  and  sup- 
erintendents.1 

The  public,  however,  was  thoroughly  dissatisfied  with 
the  existing  arrangement  and  insisted  on  a  change.  On 
Jan.  14,  1823,  the  House  passed  a  resolution  requesting  a 
report  from  the  James  River  Company  as  to  the  condition 
of  the  works  under  their  charge.2  In  response  to  this  re- 
quest the  company  submitted  a  report,  Jan.  23,  1823.  They 
advert  to  the  complaints  against  their  management  of  the 
improvement,  and  state  that,  "  They  have  'been  at  all  times 
fully  aware  of  their  incapacity  to  conduct  such  important 
concerns,  and  have  hitherto  been  induced  to  continue  their 
superintendence  of  them  by  the  sole  consideration  that 
others  could  not  'be  procured  to  undertake  the  trust".8 
With  this  statement  of  their  incapacity  the  public  appears 
to  have  been  in  full  accord.  It  is  doubtless  true,  however, 
that  there  was  much  prejudice,  misconception,  and  sectional 
jealousy  directed  against  the  improvement  at  the  time,  as 
there  was  generally  thereafter,  regardless  of  the  authority 
In  control  of  it. 

Article  signed  "Brindley,"  Richmond  Enquirer,  Jan.  2,  1823. 

1  House  Journal,  1822-23,  PP-  136-38. 

*Ibid. 


72        THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [3I2 

At  this  crisis  the  General  Assembly  passed  the  act  of, 
Feb.  24,  1823,  which  radically  changed  the  status  of  the 
enterprise.1  By  the  act  of  Feb.  17,  1820,  the  rights  and 
interests  of  the  James  River  Company  had  been  transferred 
to  the  commonwealth;  but  the  company  had  continued  to 
act  as  the  agent  of  the  state,  holding  in  trust  for  the 
'benefit  of  the  state,  and  executing  the  work  under  the  con- 
trol, direction  and  superintendence  of  the  Legislature. 
Under  the  act  of  Feb.  24,  1823,  this  mode  of  prosecuting; 
the  work  was  abandoned,  and  henceforth  the  improvement 
(became  a  state  enterprise  under  the  exclusive  control  and 
superintendence  of  state  officials.  The  act  provided  that 
all  the  rights,  powers  and  privileges  of  the  existing  presi- 
dent and  directors  of  the  James  River  Company : 

Shall  be  superseded  and  annulled,  and  thereafter  no  other 
election  of  president  and  directors  shall  be  made  in  the  man- 
ner provided  by  law;  but  the  Governor,  Lieutenant-Governor, 
treasurer,  and  auditor  of  the  commonwealth  for  the  time 
being,  and  the  second  auditor,  whose  office  is  created  by  this 
act,  shall  be  ex-offrcio  the  president  and  directors  of  the  Com- 
pany; of  whom  the  Governor  shall  be  president,  and  the 
Lieut.-Governor,  treasurer,  auditor,  and  second  auditor  .... 
shall  succeed  to  and  possess  all  the  rights,  duties  and  privileges 
of  the  existing  president  and  directors.2 

The  faith  of  the  commonwealth  was  pledged  to  provide 
funds  to  defray  interest  on  all  loans  hitherto  made  or  that 
might  be  made.  The  act  further  provided  that  a  commis- 
sioner should  be  appointed  by  the  Assembly  for  the  James 
and  Jackson  rivers,  annually;  and  a  similar  officer  to  be 
known  as  commissioner  of  Kanawha  road  and  navigation.3 

*Va.  Acts,  1822-23,  PP-  50-58. 

Ibid.    The   second  auditor,   whose   office   was   hereby   created,   was 
destined  to  become  one  of  the  most  important  officials  of  the  state. 
3  Ibid. 


THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  73 

With  a  view  to  the  accommodation  of  the  western  coun- 
ties, the  General  Assembly  passed  an  act,  March  8,  1824, 
authorizing  the  construction  of  a  canal  at  the  pass  of  the 
James  river  through  the  Blue  Ridge ;  and  an  additional  loan 
of  $400,000  for  this  purpose  and  for  the  construction  of 
the  first  three  sections  of  the  principal  scheme.1  The  act 
also  authorized  a  new  survey  from  Maiden's  Adventure 
Falls  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlop's  Creek,  "  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  most  practicable  improvement  for  that  part 
of  the  line,  together  with  an  examination  of  the  works 
hitherto  executed  and  their  present  state."  2  In  compliance 
with  this  act  the  state  engineer,  C.  Crozet,  assisted  by 
Benjamin  Wright  of  New  York,  made  an  elaborate  survey, 
which  showed  that  the  cost  of  a  continued  canal  would 
greatly  exceed  the  estimates  of  former  engineers.3 

By  the  act  of  Feb.  16,  1825,  the  General  Assembly 
authorized  the  company  to  borrow  $200,000,  on  the  credit 
of  the  state,  for  the  purpose  of  finishing  the  first  three  sec- 
tions of  the  canal,  and  the  Blue  Ridge  canal ;  and  of  extend- 
ing the  road  from  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Kanawha  to  the 
lower  end  of  Kanawha  county.4 

The  work  on  the  improvement  progressed  slowly.  By 
February,  1824,  the  results  accomplished  consisted  of 
thirty- four  miles  of  canal  constructed,  an  imperfect  road 
of  some  100  miles,  and  contracts  let  for  the  improvement 
of  the  Great  Kanawha;  while  the  cost  had  already  involved 
borrowing  $830, ooo.5  Governor  Tyler,  in  his  sessional 

lVa.  Acts,  1823-24,  pp.  12-13. 

2  Maiden's  Adventure  Falls  is  here  substituted  for  Pleasant's  Island 
as  the  highest  point  of  the  lower  canal.  It  was  about  27  miles  above 
Richmond. 

^Report  Bd.  Pub.  Wks.,  1824,  vol.  iv,  pp.  24-29. 
*Va.  Acts,  1824-25,  pp.  38-45. 

8 House  Journal,  1824-25,  pp.  136-38.  The  report  of  the  second  audi- 
tor, Feb.  10,  1826,  showed  expenditures  amounting  to  $1,030,000,  obtained 


74 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 


message  to  the  Legislature  of  1825-6,  Dec.  4,  1826,  said 
with  reference  to  the  James  river  improvement  and  the  re- 
port of  the  state  engineer  thereon  : 

You  will  learn  that  $4,750,000  will  be  required  to  complete 
the  canal  as  originally  contemplated  from  Maiden's  Adven- 
ture falls  to  Covington.  .  .  .  The  improvement  of  the  Kana- 
wha  is  nearly  completed,  and  the  Kanawha  road  is  entirely 
completed,  so  far  as  originally  contemplated.  .  .  .  The  state 
occupies  the  footing  of  a  company  in  regard  to  this  work. 
There  has  been  expended  on  this  improvement  already  $1,230,- 
ooo;  all  of  which  has  been  procured  on  loan,  and  forms  an 
outstanding  debt  against  the  state.  The  interest  on  that  debt 
amounts  annually  to  $71,673.50.  In  order  to  meet  this  interest 
we  are  to  look  to  tolls  receivable.  .  .  .  What  expedient  is 
left  but  that  the  scheme  of  improvement  should  be  consum- 
mated; and  that  it  should  be  achieved  on  such  a  scale  as  to 
pay  the  interest  on  loans  contracted  for  its  completion,  and  to 
afford  a  reasonable  prospect  of  reimbursement  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  those  loans  ?  x 

The  Legislature,  however,  refused  to  take  the  necessary 
measures  to  complete  the  canal.  As  often  as  the  friends 
of  the  project  rallied  to  its  support,  and  they  did  make  four 
determined  efforts  to  carry  it  through  to  successful  com- 
pletion, sectional  jealousy  or  timid  counsels  blocked  their 
efforts  and  they  were  never  able  to  secure  the  desired 
majority  in  the  General  Assembly.2  Thus  the  work  on  the 

from  loans  from  Feb.  17,  1820  to  Jan.  i,  1826.  Of  this  there  had  been 
expended  on  canal  from  Richmond  to  Maiden's  Adventure,  $636,295.05; 
on  canal  through  the  Blue  Ridge,  $175,267.24;  on  Kana*vha  turnpike 
road,  $150,224;  on  Kanawha  river,  $53,861.06.  House  Journal,  1825-6, 
doc.  A. 

1  House  Journal,  1826-27,  pp.  9-11.  All  the  transactions  of  the  organi- 
zation while  under  exclusively  state  control  were  still  in  the  name  of  the 
"  James  River  Company,"  which  remained  its  style. 

8  Eleventh  Annual  Report  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company,  p.  753. 


THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY 


75 


canal  came  to  a  stand-still.  The  Legislature  did  bestir  it- 
self to  pass  the  act  of  Jan.  30,  1829,  authorizing  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Kanawha  road  to  the  mouth  of  Big  Sandy  river, 
together  with  a  loan  for  that  purpose  of  $50,000,  on  the 
credit  of  the  state.  The  act  further  provided  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  superintendent  of  the  road,  to  make  con- 
tracts and  direct  the  work.1 

On  July  14,  1828,  a  great  Internal  Improvement  Con- 
vention, with  delegates  from  thirty-nine  counties  of  the 
state,  met  at  Charlottesville.  Ex-President  Madison  was 
chosen  president  of  the  convention.  Other  prominent  mem- 
bers were  John  Marshall,  James  Monroe,  Joseph  C.  Cabell, 
James  Barbour,  and  Wm.  C.  Rives.  It  was  a  memorable 
gathering  and  lasted  six  days.  Every  phase  of  internal  im- 
provement in  the  state  was  discussed  with  great  seriousness 
and  ability,  and  the  results  of  the  discussions  were  embodied 
in  a  memorial  drawn  up  by  a  committee  of  which  Monroe 
was  chairman.  This  memorial,  which  was  addressed  to 
the  Legislature,  was  chiefly  a  plea  for  the  completion  of  the 
canal  along  James  river,  more  particularly  on  the  ground 
that  unless  it  were  completed  the  money  already  spent  on 
it  would  be  comparatively  unproductive.  It  also  recom- 
mended the  improvement  of  the  Great  Kanawha  from  the 
falls  to  the  Ohio  "  as  a  link  in  that  chain  of  connection 
which,  passing  through  Virginia,  may  unite  the  Ohio  to 
the  Chesapeake."  It  further  declared  that  "the  extension 
of  the  Kanawha  road,  westward  to  the  Ohio,  and  eastward 
to  the  eastern  frontier  of  the  state,  is  a  measure  dictated  by 
sound  policy."  2 

The  Charlottesville  Convention,  held  to  revive  interest  in 
internal  improvements,  produced  but  slight  effect  on  the 

lVa.  Acts,  1828-29,  pp.  46-47. 

*  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  found  in  House  Journal,  1828-29, 
PP-  35  e*  seq.  of  docs. 


76       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 

course  of  events.1  The  great  obstacle  to  any  scheme  of 
improvement  that  was  at  all  adequate  was  that  it  involved 
a  large  outlay  of  money,  and  this  in  turn  necessitated  an  in- 
crease in  taxes,  to  which  the  people  were  not  inclined.2 
Nevertheless,  Virginia  was  at  that  time  expending  consider- 
able sums  on  internal  improvements,  and  continued  to  in- 
crease such  expenditures.  The  trans-Alleghany  region 
threw  the  whole  weight  of  its  influence  in  favor  of  the 
movement  as  being  of  vital  importance  to  its  interests. 
Those  parts  of  the  state  which  received  no  particular  benefit 
from  the  scheme  steadily  opposed  it,  and  hence  it  proceeded 
haltingly  amid  the  conflict  of  sectional  interests.  The  James 
river  project  was  from  the  beginning  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant phase  of  Virginia's  internal  improvement  scheme, 
and  continued  to  remain  so,  but  from  the  first  it  encountered 
strong  opposition  and  persistent  criticism.  In  order  to 
secure  funds  with  which  to  carry  on  this  enterprise,  its 
friends  in  the  Legislature  were  forced  to  accede  to  the  terms 
of  those  from  other  sections  of  the  state  who  were  de- 
manding funds  for  improvements  in  their  respective  locali- 
ties. Thus  it  happened  that  much  money  was  spent  on 
internal  improvement  schemes  of  minor  importance  to  the 
injury  of  the  few  which  were  of  vital  significance  to  the 
development  of  the  commerce  of  the  state  at  large.  It  was 
the  old  story  of  sectional  prejudice  and  jealousy,  with  here 
and  there  a  man  of  broad  and  statesman-like  views  rising1 
to  stand  for  the  interests  of  the  whole  state  and  of  the 
Union. 

Had  the  western  counties  not  been  deprived  of  their  just 
share  of  representation  by  the  slave-holding  aristocracy  of 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the   Va.  State  Convention  of  1829-30, 
p.  143- 

2  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the   Va.  State  Convention  of  1829-30, 
P.  143. 


317]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  77 

the  eastern  counties,  the  story  of  internal  improvements  in 
Virginia,  and  especially  of  that  of  its  main  enterprise,  would 
have  been  very  different.  The  Virginia  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  1829-30,  while  composed  of  a  distinguished 
membership,  was  thoroughly  undemocratic  in  its  outlook 
and  actions  and  gave  a  body-blow  to  the  aspirations,  both 
political  and  commercial,  of  the  rich  and  growing  counties 
of  western  Virginia.  This  attitude  greatly  embittered  the 
trans-Alleghany  region,  whose  most  insistent  commercial 
demand  was  for  increased  transportation  facilities  as  being 
essential  to  its  development  and  prosperity.  Nothing  better 
reveals  the  extent  of  sectionalism  in  the  state  than  the  cir- 
cumstances surrounding  this  convention.  The  tidewater 
counties  were  opposed  to  its  'being  called  at  all  and  voted 
overwhelmingly  against  it,  but  the  Valley  and  the  trans- 
Alleghany  counties  were  strongly  for  it,  while  Piedmont 
was  divided.  The  west  favored  it  as  being  likely  to  give 
a  wider  basis  for  suffrage  and  an  increased  representation 
from  that  section  in  the  legislature;  the  east  opposed  it  for 
these  reasons.  The  west  wanted  greater  political  power  the 
better  to  enforce  its  demands  for  internal  improvements;- 
the  east,  which  paid  the  larger  part  of  the  taxes,  feared  the 
growing  power  of  the  west  and  did  not  wish  to  be  shorn  of 
its  privileged  position.  When  the  convention  met  its  time 
was  devoted  chiefly  to  discussion  of  the  issues  of  represen- 
tation and  the  suffrage,  and  sectional  feeling  rose  high. 
The  east  stood  for  maintaining  the  status  quo;  the  west 
demanded  reform.  The  completed  constitution  was  the 
work  of  the  conservatives,  who  proved  the  stronger.  It 
granted  to  the  west  only  a  slight  increase  in  representation, 
though  it  did  extend  the  right  of  suffrage  somewhat.  The 
trans-Alleghany  region  was  so  dissatisfied  with  the  result 
that  talk  of  dismemberment  was  frequent.1 

*For  description  of  this  convention  and  its  work,   see  Proceedings 


78       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [318 

Eastern  Virginia  continued  to  hold  the  purse-strings  and 
to  dole  out  grudgingly  appropriations  for  internal  improve- 
ments in  the  trans-Alleghany  region.  Though  members  of 
the  Assembly  from  that  region  continued  to  demand  in- 
sistently a  policy  of  improvements  that  would  develop  its  vast 
resources  of  mine  and  forest,  no  such  policy  was  inaug- 
urated at  this  time  and  the  people  of  western  Virginia  "  had 
to  remain  content  with  paltry  appropriations  for  turnpikes, 
obtained  by  logrolling,  while  vast  sums  were  spent  on  badly 
managed  improvements  which  were  undertaken  in  the 
East  'V 

The  question  of  internal  improvements  was  to  the  fore 
in  the  session  of  the  Assembly  of  1830-31,  and  sectional  in- 
terests determined  the  votes  of  the  members.  The  seqtional 
lines  had  been  commented  on  by  Mr.  Johnson  of  Augusta, 
during  the  Convention  of  1829-30,  as  follows : 

The  country  east  of  the  Alleghany  and  above  tidewater  is 
divided  into  three  great  interests,  the  Potomac,  the  James, 
and  the  Roanoke,  and  two  subordinate,  the  Rappahannock 
and  Appomattox,  not  to  mention  the  yet  smaller  interest  of 
the  Pamunkey.  The  trans-Alleghany  interest  might  be  as- 
sociated in  part  with  the  three  great  interests  in  plans  of  very 
extensive  improvement,  but  as  to  all  minor  objects  would  would 
be  sub-divided  with  reference  to  its  own  navigable  streams.2 

and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention  of  1829-30 
('Richmond,  1830) ;  H.  B.  Grigsby,  Virginia  Convention  of  1829-30 
(Richmond,  1854)  ;  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  1776-1861  (Chicago, 
1910),  chapter  v;  J.  M.  Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia  (Published 
by  the  Semi-centennial  Commission  of  West  Virginia,  1913),  chapter  vi. 

1  Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia,  p.  134. 

a  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1829-30,  p.  287.  The  disbursement  of  the  internal  improvement  fund 
for  1830  serves  to  show  how  the  members  were  accustomed  to  vote 
appropriations  from  sectional  motives,  as  follows:  Tidewater  district, 
$300,500;  Middle  (Piedmont)  district,  $317,708;  Valley  (including  the 
Southwest),  $70,625;  trans-Alleghany,  $13,180.  Obviously  this  repre- 
sents a  union  of  the  Tidewater  and  Piedmont  interests  in  the  Assembly 
to  control  the  situation.  See  Niks'  Register,  vol.  39,  February  12,  1831, 
p.  427. 


319]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  79 

The  clashing  of  these  interests,  with  their  various  rami- 
fications, resulted  in  the  defeat  of  a  bill  to  appropriate  two 
million  dollars  to  internal  improvements  at  this  session, 
"  some  of  the  members  seeming  to  prefer  that  no  improve- 
ment should  be  made  unless  their  own  immediate  neighbor- 
hood had  a  part  in  it."  x 

The  people  most  interested  in  turnpike  roads  and  canals 
were  those  above  the  head  of  tidewater,  and  the  farther  west 
one  proceeded  the  greater  became  the  demand  for  such  im- 
provements. The  speech  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Fauquier  in  the 
Convention  of  1829-30  illustrates  further  the  different  in- 
terests that  made  logrolling  for  appropriations  in  this  era  of 
internal  improvement  a  feature  of  almost  every  session  of 
the  Assembly.  He  said: 

The  scale  of  improvements  of  the  larger  streams  suited  to  the 
wants  of  the  middle  region  is  much  inferior  to  that  demanded 
by  the  western  people;  they  would  therefore  be  but  partially 
benefited  by  the  improvements  which  the  interests  of  the 
people  of  the  middle  region  would  lead  them  to  make.  Those 
demanded  by  the  people  of  the  Valley  will  afford  for  the 
most  part  no  benefit  to  the  people  of  the  middle  region  and 
little  to  those  west  of  the  Alleghany.  They  require  that 
the  Chesapeake  shall  be  united  with  the  Ohio,  the  James  with 
the  Kanawha.2 

The  friends  of  the  James  River  Company,  consisting 
chiefly  of  the  James  river  valley  delegation  and  the  mem- 
bers from  the  trans-Alleghany  region,  favored  the  policy 
of  concentrating  the  funds  of  the  state  in  consecutive  order 
first  on  one  and  then  on  another  of  the  more  important  in- 
ternal improvement  projects  rather  than  scattering  them  in- 
discriminately on  a  host  of  petty  schemes.  But  this  policy 

lNiles'  Register,   vol.  40,   March   12,    1831,  p.  25.     The  vote  in  the 
House  was  57  for  to  66  against  the  bill,  ibid. 
*  Proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1829-30,  p.  127. 


go       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [320 

fell  before  the  system  of  simultaneous  appropriations  for 
different  parts  of  the  state.  In  the  bill  of  1831,  lost 
through  contentions  as  to  the  division  of  the  spoil,  one- 
fourth  of  the  loan  was  apportioned  to  the  James  River  Com- 
pany and  the  other  three-fourths  to  the  various  smaller  in- 
terests.1 

The  sections  of  the  state  not  immediately  interested  in 
the  improvement  effected  by  the  James  River  Company, 
ordinarily  known  as  "  the  central  line ",  had  for  some 
years  "  evinced  a  growing  discontent  at  the  heavy  drafts 
made  upon  the  fund  for  internal  improvement,  and  the 
prospect  of  heavier  drafts  in  future."  z  Sectionalism  was 
chiefly  responsible  for  the  failure  of  the  commonwealth  to 
prosecute  this  state  enterprise  to  a  successful  completion. 
Nevertheless,  the  state  was  not  disposed  to  allow  any  rival 
line  to  be  established  which  was  likely  to  interfere  with  the 
central  line.  At  the  session  of  1826-27  the  General  As- 
sembly passed  an  act  giving  its  sanction  to  the  charter  of 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company,  which  measure 
was  necessary  to  enable  this  road  to  run  through  Virginia, 
but  the  Assembly,  in  order  to  avoid  interference  with  the 
James  River  line,  incorporated  in  the  bill  a  proviso  that  the 
new  railroad  should  pass  along  the  northern  border  of  the 
state  "  so  as  to  strike  the  Ohio  river  at  some  point  north  of 
the  Little  Kanawha  river."  3  At  the  next  session  of  the  legis- 
lature a  bill  was  introduced,  at  the  instance  of  several  of 
the  western  counties,  to  have  this  restriction  upon  the  right 

1  Address  of  Joseph  C.  C obeli  to  the  Citizens  of  Richmond,  December 
10,  1834,  on  the  expediency  of  a  liberal  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  (Richmond,  1835),  p.  23. 

z  Report  of  Committee  of  Roads  and  Inland  Navigation,  House 
Journal,  1831-32,  doc.  no.  34,  p.  9-  This  report  is  extended  and 
valuable. 

*Ibid.t  p.  13. 


THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  8l 

of  location  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  removed. 
The  bill  aroused  a  lively  discussion,  'but  was  decisively  de- 
feated.^ 

At  the  session  of  1828-29  an  act  was  passed  providing 
for  the  extension  of  the  Kanawha  road  to  the  mouth  of 
Big  Sandy  river  and  authorizing  a  loan  of  $50,000  for  that 
purpose.2  In  1821  this  road  had  been  located  westward 
through  Greenbrier  toward  the  falls  of  the  Great  Kanawha, 
and  lay  on  the  right  side  of  the  New  and  the  Great  Kan- 
awha. In  1822  bridges  were  constructed  on  that  portion 
situated  between  Lewisburg  and  Gauley.  By  1824  the  road 
was  completed  to  the  Kanawha  falls  and  three  years  later 
it  had  reached  a  point  within  twenty-six  miles  of  Charles- 
ton. The  Board  of  Public  works,  impressed  with  the  be- 
lief that  this  would  be  the  shortest  road  to  the  west,  in  1828 
recommended  its  completion  to  the  Ohio.  It  appears,  also, 
that  Clay  had  encouraged  the  expectation  that  Kentucky 
would  build  a  good  road  from  Lexington  to  Big  Sandy, 
which  would  make  a  through  connection  from  Covington 
to  Lexington  and  beyond.  Charleston  was  selected  as  the 
point  of  crossing  the  river  and  work  was  renewed  in  1828 ; 
and  the  act  of  1829  insured  the  funds  to  complete  the  road 
to  Big  Sandy.3  It  was  completed  in  1829  under  the  super- 
vision of  Claudius  Crozet,  the  state  engineer;  and  extended 
a  distance  of  two  hundred  miles  from  Covington  to  the 
mouth  of  Big  Sandy  on  the  Ohio,  with  a  branch  of  eight 
miles  from  Barboursville  to  Guyandotte,  making  its  total 
length  two  hundred  and  eight  miles.4  The  cost  of  the 

llbid.,  p.  15. 

2  Ibid.  This  extension  would  make  the  road  200  miles  long,  from 
Covington.  At  the  time  it  was  an  important  highway. 

6J.  M.  Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia,  pp.  95-96. 

*C.  Crozet,  Outline  of  Improvements  in  the  State  of  Virginia 
(Phila.,  1848),  pp.  23-23.  Crozet  was  an  interesting  character.  Born  in 


82       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [322 

• 

Kanawha  Turnpike,  as  completed,  was  $192,874.78.  It 
was  "  generally  twenty-two  feet  wide,  with  the  center  raised 
by  a  curve  from  each  side,  and  sloped  ditches."  There 
were  two  excellent  bridges  over  the  Greenbrier  and  the 
Gauley,  costing  about  $18,000  each.2 

Toll  gates  were  erected  at  suitable  intervals  and  toll 
gatherers  received  nine  per  cent,  of  the  collections.  By  act  ! 
of  February  i,  1809,  tolls  had  been  fixed  varying  from  three 
cents  per  score  for  sheep  or  hogs  to  twenty-five  cents  for 
wagon  team  and  driver.  In  1825  the  toll  was  five  cents  for 
each  person.  Exemptions  were  made  for  those  living 
within  four  miles  of  a  toll  gate  and  not  traveling  over  four 
miles;  and,  by  act  of  February  28,  1829,  for  persons  going 
to  and  returning  from  mill.3 

In  1827  the  first  stage  line  was  established  between  Char- 
leston and  Lewisburg,  and  made  weekly  trips  at  a  fare  of 
$7.00.  When  the  road  was  extended  to  Big  Sandy,  the 
weekly  stage  route  was  likewise  extended  to  that  point,  and 

France  in  1790,  he  served  under  Napoleon.  Came  to  America  in  1816, 
and  was  appointed  Professor  of  Mathematics  and  Engineering  at  West 
Point  Military  Academy.  Became  chief  engineer  of  Virginia  in  1824. 
In  1830  he  reached  the  conclusion  that  a  railroad  was  the  best  plan  for 
the  central  line  of  improvement,  but  this  not  meeting  with  favor  he  left 
Virginia  and  went  to  Louisiana,  where  he  became  president  of  Jefferson 
College.  -Returned  to  Virginia  as  chief  engineer  in  1837,  which  position 
he  held  until  the  office  was  abolished  in  1844.  In  1849  he  was  engaged 
by  Virginia  to  locate  and  construct  the  Blue  'Ridge  'Railroad ;  and  at  a 
later  date  was  engaged  to  locate  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Railroad. 
Was  an  outstanding  figure  in  Virginia's  economic  history.  See  J.  D. 
Imboden,  "  Report  on  Virginia,"  in  Report  on  the  Internal  Commerce 
of  the  United  States,  1886,  Part  II  of  Commerce  and  Nai'igation, 
Appendix,  pp.  17-18. 

JG.  Armroyd,  A  Connected  View  of  the  Whole  Internal  Navigation 
of  the  United  States  (Phila.,  1830),  p.  308;  cf.  Twenty-sixth  Annual 
Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  p.  725.  The  cost  of  the 
road  to  1830  was  $176,190.04.  House  Journal,  1830-31,  doc.  no.  20. 

'Callahan,  op.  cit.,  p.  95. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  93-96. 


323]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  83 

passengers  might  travel  from  Big  Sandy  to  Lewisburg  for 
$11.00.  The  road  really  had  two  termini  on  the  Ohio;  one 
at  Big  Sandy,  the  other  at  Guyandotte,  and  connected  with 
the  Ohio  steamers  at  either  place.  Guyandotte,  however, 
was  the  principal  point,  as  it  had  a  population  of  30x5  by 
1835,  and>  next  to  Wheeling,  was  the  most  important  point 
of  steam-boat  embarkation  and  debarkation  in  western  Vir- 
ginia. At  Big  Sandy,  connections  could  'be  made  in  1832' 
with  a  stage  line  to  Lexington,  Kentucky.  At  Lewisburg1 
connections  might  be  made  with  a  stage  line  running  east- 
ward through  White  Sulphur,  Salt  Sulphur  and  Sweet 
Springs  to  Fincastle.1  In  1831  the.  increase  of  travel  east- 
ward necessitated  extra  stages  and  the  mail  contracts  made 
daily  stages  profitable.  The  time  required  for  transmission 
of  mail  from  Richmond  to  Guyandotte  in  the  thirties,  was 
four  and  one-half  days.2 

Callahan  describes  the  effect  of  this  road  on  the  life  of 
the  times  as  follows : 

Among  the  local  influences  attributed  to  the  turnpike  were 
the  decrease  of  game,  the  increase  of  evidence  of  civilization 
resulting  partly  from  the  immigration  of  families  of  refined 
people  from  eastern  Virginia,  and  the  economic  and  industrial 
development  resulting  from  market  facilities  and  the  increase 
of  passing  travel  and  traffic. 

The  route  soon  become  a  busy  thoroughfare  of  travel  and 
traffic — an  avenue  of  activity  and  increasing  wealth.  .  .  . 

llbid.,  pp.  97-99.  "White  Sulphur  Springs,  a  resort  which  has  been 
crowded  with  visitors  during  the  warm  season  of  each  year  since  its  first 
opening  in  1818,  was  reached  from  Washington  in  three  days  travel — by 
steamboat  to  Fredericksburg,  thence  by  stage  via  Charlottesville,  Staun- 
ton  and  Warm  Springs.  Callahan's  celebrated  tavern  thirteen  miles  east 
of  White  Sulphur  was  a  center  of  the  travel  from  all  directions — Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland,  North  Carolina — and  an  inter  junction  of  several  mail 
routes."  Quoted  by  Callahan,  ibid.,  p.  99,  source  not  given. 

2  Callahan,  loc.  cit.,  p.  98. 


84       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [324 

Westward  over  the  route  passed  many  families  emigrating  to 
Ohio  and  Kentucky.  Hundreds  of  wagons  and  other  convey- 
ances filled  with  emigrant  families  ....  who  had  left  the 
worn-out  lands  of  Virginia  to  seek  new  homes  in  the  states 
bordering  on  the  Ohio.  .  .  .x 

The  road  continued  to  be  an  important  highway  until 
about  1852,  when  its  traffic  began  to  decline.  Other  roads 
were  built  which  lessened  its  importance  and  afforded  "  pre- 
ferable routes  to  the  eastern  markets/'  Receipts  from  tolls 
fell  off  appreciably  and  the  road  became  hardly  self-sustain- 
ing.2 

At  the  session  of  the  Assembly,  1830-31,  Crozet,  the 
state  engineer,  in  a  communication  to  the  Committee  on 
Roads  and  Inland  Navigation,  confessed  his  change  of  view 
in  regard  to  the  proper  plan  of  improvement  on  the  James 
river  line  and  advised  as  a  substitute  for  locks  and  dams  a 
continued  railroad  from  Richmond  to  Covington;  but  this 
recommendation  did  not  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  com- 
mittee^ The  friends  of  the  central  improvement  attempted 
at  this  session  to  secure  resumption  of  work  on  the  line, 

llbid.,  pp.  99-100.  There  was  a  considerable  freight  traffic  on  the  road 
in  the  thirties  and  forties.  Thousands  of  hogs  were  driven  to  the  eastern 
markets,  and  great  quantities  of  salt  were  hauled  thither.  The  chief 
products  carried  west  were  plug-tobacco,  fruit,  whiskey  and  general 
merchandise.  Cf.  Armroyd's  Connected  View,  p.  309. 

J Eighteenth  Annual  Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company, 
p.  480;  cf.  Eleventh  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  Appendix,  p.  i;  also  Twenty- 
third  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  401.  The  ravages  of  the  Civil  War  were 
disastrous  to  the  road,  and  the  busy  life  of  ante-bellum  days  never  re- 
turned. Besides  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Turnpike,  other  im- 
portant roads  connecting  Virginia  with  the  west  were  the  Cumberland 
Road  (National),  the  Staunton  and  Parkersburg  Turnpike,  and  the 
Northwestern  Turnpike  (Winchester  to  Parkersburg).  All  these  roads 
were  factors  in  the  westward  movement  and  in  the  problem  of  communi- 
cation between  the  East  and  the  West  in  the  early  days. 

*For  Crozet's  report,  see  Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  1830,  p.  241. 


325]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  85 

but  were  outvoted  by  their  opponents.  The  most  that  could 
be  gotten  was  the  authorization  for  another  survey  by  the 
state  engineer  and  an  assistant  engineer, 

Still  further  to  test  the  comparative  merits  of  an  improve- 
ment by  a  continued  canal,  by  a  continued  railroad,  or  by  a 
line  of  locks  and  dams,  from  the  city  of  Richmond  to  the 
town  of  Covington;  as  also  to  ascertain  the  best  location  for 
a  canal  or  a  railroad,  from  the  James  and  Jackson's  rivers  to 
Roanoke  and  New  rivers,  as  well  as  the  most  expedient  plan 
for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  latter  stream.1 

Even  to  secure  the  authorization  for  this  survey  it  was 
necessary  to  obtain  the  support  of  the  Rbanoke  river  in- 
terests by  including  that  river  in  the  scheme  of  the  survey. 

Under  the  authority  thus  conferred  Judge  Benjamin 
Wright,  of  New  York,  was  again  called  into  the  service  of 
the  state  in  the  capacity  of  assistant  engineer.  Unfortun- 
ately for  the  progress  of  the  enterprise  Judge  Wright  and 
Crozet  disagreed  as  to  the  best  plan  to  be  adopted.  Wright 
advocated  a  canal  from  Richmond  to  the  mountains,  and  a 
railroad  thence  to  the  west;  Crozet,  a  continued  railroad 
throughout  the  entire  line  from  east  to  west.  The  con- 
flicting reports  of  the  two  engineers  still  further  complicated 
the  situation  and  added  to  its  perplexities.  It  would  have 
been  difficult  to  secure  the  resumption  of  the  work  on  the 
canal  even  if  the  engineers  had  agreed  upon  a  plan  and 
there  had  been  no  division  in  the  public  mind  as  to  the  plan, 
but  the  variant  views  of  the  engineers,  coupled  with  the  con- 
fusion of  the  public  mind  on  the  subject  and  the  clash  of 
sectional  interests,  effectually  prevented  the  prosecution  of 
the  work  to  completion.  As  a  state  enterprise,  the  James 
River  Company  never  resumed  the  work,  and  the  friends 
of  the  improvement  began  to  consider  the  expediency  of 

!J    lHouse  Journal,  1831-32,  doc.  no.  34,  p.  15. 


86       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [326 

converting  it  into  a  joint  stock  company  to  continue  the 
work.1 

The  James  River  Company  as  a  state  enterprise,  whether 
under  the  compact  or  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
state,  was  a  signal  failure.  It  never  accomplished  what  it 
set  out  to  do.  It  failed  to  construct  a  canal  from  Rich- 
mond to  Covington,  which  was  its  original  design.  After 
1823,  work  on  this  part  of  the  improvement  was  almost 
suspended,  and  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  years  was  entirely 
suspended.  After  1828  practically  all  work  on  the  line  as 
a  whole,  except  on  the  Kanawha  road,  was  allowed  to  lan- 
guish for  lack  of  funds  to  execute  it.  Though  the  organ- 
ization continued  until  1835  but  little  new  work  was  under- 
taken. The  public  mind  was  unsettled,  the  public  counsels 
divided,  sectionalism  precluded  progress.  Repeated  sur- 
veys had  been  made  to  ascertain  the  practicability  and  ex- 
pense of  the  project.  The  legislature,  ever  cautious,  had 
not  proceeded  vigorously  to  the  task.  Timid  counsels  had 
caused  it  to  lay  out  the  work  in  three  main  sections,  rather 
than  as  a  great  single  improvement.  The  first  section  was 
the  canal  from  Richmond  to  Maiden's  Adventure  Falls,  a 
distance  of  about  thirty  miles,  and  this  section  was  com- 
pleted. No  other  canal  construction  was  done  by  this  or- 
ganization except  a  canal  through  the  Blue  Ridge,  about 
seven  miles  in  length.  The  second  section  designated  by 
the  legislature  for  construction  was  the  Kanawha  turnpike, 
which  was  duly  completed.  The  third  section  consisted  of 
the  improvement  of  the  Kanawha  river.  It  had  been  ex- 
pected that  the  tolls  upon  coal  would  defray  a  large  part  of 
the  expense  of  constructing  the  first  section ;  the  tolls  upon 

1  Joseph  C.  Cabell,  Defense  of  the  Canal  and  of  a  Continuous  Water 
Line  Through  Virginia  (Richmond,  1845),  p.  753.  Cabell's  "Defense" 
may  also  be  found  as  a  supplement  to  the  Eleventh  Annual  Report  of  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  pp.  627-769- 


327]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  87 

the  road,  that  of  the  second;  and  the  tolls  upon  the  salt 
trade  of  the  Kanawha  region,  that  of  the  third.  The  Blue 
Ridge  canal  was  the  subject  of  subsequent  legislation  and 
was  not  included  in  the  original  scheme.  It  was  thought 
that  even  if  the  improvement  were  not  extended  beyond  the 
sections  thus  provided  by  law,  these  would  still  be  perman- 
ently useful.  When  the  first  three  sections  had  been  com- 
pleted the  expenditures  on  the  canal  had  so  far  exceeded 
the  estimates  that  the  Assembly  became  alarmed  and  hesi- 
tated to  proceed  with  the  work.  One  of  the  main  factors 
in  its  discontinuance  was  the  expense  involved.  Further- 
more, the  expectation  as  to  the  revenues  to  be  derived  from 
the  completed  portions  of  the  work  were  not  realized,  and 
this  caused  enthusiasm  to  wane.1 

The  James  River  Company  under  state  control,  from 
1820  to  1835,  enlarged  and  reconstructed  the  former  canal 
from  Richmond  to  Westham  and  extended  it  to  Maiden's 
Adventure  Falls  in  Goochland  county.  The  enlarged  canal 
was  about  thirty  miles  long,  forty  feet  wide,  and  from  three 
to  three  and  one-half  feet  deep.  The  dam  across  the  James 
at  Maiden's  Adventure  created  a  pond  about  nine  miles 
long,  which  served  as  a  feeder  to  the  upper  portion  of  the 
canal.  About  ten  miles  above  Richmond  another  dam  was 
built  across  the  river  for  the  purpose  of  feeding  the  canal 
below,  creating  a  pond  several  miles  in  extent.2  The 
Maiden's  Adventure  section,  completed  in  1825,  at  a  cost 
of  $640,143.12,  consisted  of  a  series  of  twelve  locks,  which 
connected  the  river  with  a  basin  at  Richmond.  The  Blue 
Ridge  section,  ordinarily  known  as  the  Balcony  Falls  Canal, 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1829-30,  pp.  289-290. 

1  James  River  an4  Kanawha  Company;  Central  Water  Line  from  the 
Ohio  River  to  tlic  Virginia  Capes  ('Richmond,  1868),  p.  53;  also,  Reports 
Board  of  Public  Works,  vol.  vi,  1830-31,  pp.  463-465. 


88       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [328 

extended  about  seven  miles  along  the  bank  of  the  James 
through  a  gap  of  the  Blue  Ridge  and  had  a  lockage  of 
ninety-six  feet.  It  left  the  James  river  opposite  Piney 
Island,  pursued  the  right  bank  to  Curshaw  Falls,  where 
the  canal  crossed  the  river  and  continued  its  course  along 
the  north  bank  to  its  junction  with  the  James  about  one 
mile  above  Balcony  Falls.  It  was  commenced  in  1824  and 
appears  to  have  been  completed  in  1828.  Its  locks  were 
ioJ/2  feet  wide  and  76  feet  long.  The  cost  of  this  improve- 
ment to  1830  amounted  to  $368,401. 64.* 

Despite  the  insufficiency  of  the  improvements  actually 
constructed  by  the  James  River  Company  under  state  con- 
trol, these  proved  advantageous  to  the  public  in  getting  pro- 
duce to  market.  A  comparison  of  tolls  under  the  old  com- 
pany prior  to  its  dissolution  in  1820  with  those  subsequent 
to  that  period  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  advantages  derived. 
From  1817  to  1820  the  tolls  on  tobacco,  wheat  and  flour, 
which  were  the  principal  articles  transported,  from  Carters- 
ville  to  Richmond,  were  $3.48  per  ton,  and  from  Lynch- 
burg  to  Richmond  were  $11.12  per  ton;  but  from  1827  to 
1832,  tolls  were  $2.06  and  $5.30  per  ton  between  the  same 
points,  respectively;  or  about  half  what  they  had  been,  for 
a  ton  of  2,000  pounds  in  each  instance.2 

The  company  improved  the  navigation  of  the  Great 
Kanawha  by  wing-dams  and  sluices  from  Charleston  to  its 
mouth,  a  distance  of  about  fifty-eight  miles.  At  intervals 
throughout  the  river  navigation  was  impeded  by  the  exist- 
ence of  shoals  and  ripples,  but  the  channel  was  deepened 
at  the  points  where  it  was  shallow  and  the  navigation  be- 

^rmroyd's  Connected  View,  p.  304;  also,  House  Journal,  1830-31, 
doc.  no.  20;  and  H.  S.  Tanner,  The  American  Traveler,  or  Guide 
Through  the  United  States  (Philadelphia,  1834),  PP-  128,  415. 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  Ap- 
pendix, pp.  107-108. 


329]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  89 

came  safer  and  surer.  The  improvements  effected,  how- 
ever, were  not  of  a  satisfactory  nature  and  gave  rise  to 
much  complaint  from  the  people  of  the  Kanawha  valley. 
To  1830  the  company  had  expended  on  the  Kanawha  river 
improvement  the  sum  of  $91, 766. 72. *  The  political  in- 
fluence of  western  Virginia,  in  this  instance  as  in  others, 
did  not  prove  to  be  sufficiently  strong  to  secure  the  appro- 
priations necessary  for  the  proper  improvement  of  the  river 
and  this  remained  a  standing  grievance  with  the  people  of 
the  region  bordering  on  the  Great  Kanawha.  As  an  im- 
provement the  Kanawha  road  was  much  superior  to  the 
Kanawha  river.  Nevertheless  the  people  derived  consider- 
able advantage  from  both  improvements.  Armroyd,  writ- 
ing in  1830,  says  in  this  connection:  ) 

It  is  remarked  of  the  turnpike,  which  has  opened  to  a  certain 
degree  the  communication  sought  after  with  the  beautiful 
valley  watered  by  the  Kanhaway,  and  of  the  river  navigation 
set  of  improvements,  that  both  together  have  already  given 
an  impulse  to  business;  the  valley  exhibiting  an  activity  not 
known  before,  partly  in  the  lively  train  of  wagons  now  engaged 
in  transporting  salt  to  Lewisburg.  The  principal  part,  how- 
ever, of  the  salt  manufactured,  descends  the  river  as  yet  to 
Point  Pleasant  in  flat  boats,  which  load  from  400  to  500  bar- 
rels of  360  pounds  each.  Horse  boats  also  navigate  the  river, 
and  it  is  quite  probable  that  light  steamboats  will,  ere  long,  be 
introduced.2 

The  report  of  the  second  auditor  to  the  legislature  on 

1  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  Central  Water  Line,  etc.,  p.  53; 
also  see  House  Journal,  1830-31,  doc.  no.  20;  cf.  House  Journal,  1831-32, 
doc.  no.  34,  p.  15. 

"Armroyd's  Connected  View,  p.  309.  "  In  1819  the  first  steamboat  on 
the  Kanawha,  '  The  Robert  Thompson ',  ascended  to  Red  House  ... 
In  1820  the  'Albert  Donnally '  ascended  to  Charleston,  and  the  traffic  by 
river  thereafter  steadily  increased."  Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia, 
P-  54- 


pO       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [330 

March  23,  1832,  shows  that  the  cost  of  the  works  of  the 
James  River  Company  to  the  state  (exclusive  of  the  capital 
of  the  old  James  River  Company)  to  January  i,  1832, 
amounted  to  $1,349,709.57.  For  the  fiscal  year  ending 
December  31,  1831,  the  company's  income  from  tolls  and 
other  sources  amounted  to  $81.409.20,  and  its  net  revenue 
to  $42,  731.94.  The  loans  authorized  by  the  legislature  for 
the  benefit  of  the  company  to  this  time  totaled  $1,283,500, 
on  which  the  annual  interest  was  $75,978.50.  After  ap- 
plying the  surplus  revenue  to  discharging  this  interest  there 
still  remained  a  deficit  of  $30,394.76,  which  was  paid  from 
the  revenue  of  the  Fund  for  Internal  Improvement.1 

When  it  had  become  evident  that  the  improvement  would 
not  be  completed  as  a  state  enterprise,  a  new  movement 
started  for  undertaking  it  under  the  auspices  of  a  joint  stock 
company.  This  movement  gathered  headway  and  took 
form  as  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  which 
was  incorporated  March  16,  1832,  and  was  organized  May 
25,  i835.2  By  its  charter  the  whole  interest  of  the  com- 
monwealth in  the  works  and  property  of  the  James  River 
Company  was  transferred  to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company,  the  state  subscribing  three-fifths  of  the  capital 
stock.3  By  this  transaction  the  works  of  the  James  River 
Company  were  valued  at  $1,000,000.  The  new  company 
was  charged  with  the  payment  of  the  annuity  of  $21,000 
to  the  stockholders  of  the  old  James  River  Company ;  and 
as  this  sum  is  equivalent  to  a  principal  of  $350,000  at  six 
per  cent,  interest,  the  real  purchasing  price  of  the  works 
sold  to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was 

1 Reports  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp.  460-462. 

*Va.  Acts,  1831-32,  pp.  73-103;  see  also  First  Annual  Report  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company,  pp.  iii-xx. 

3  Va.  Acts,  1831-32,  loc.  cit.  The  new  company  was  commonly  called 
the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  and  as  such  is  often1  so  designated  infra. 


33 1  ]  THE  SECOND  JAMES  RIVER  COMPANY  gi 

$i,35o,ooo.1  With  this  sale  the  James  River  Company 
passed  out  of  existence  and  was  succeeded  by  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company,  which  undertook  to  carry 
out  the  project  on  a  larger  scale  as  a  joint  stock  company.2 

lVa.  Acts,  1831-32,  pp.  77-103,  passim. 

'From  February  29,  1820,  to  March  27,  1823,  when  the  James  'River 
Company  acted  as  the  agent  of  the  state  under  the  compact,  the  president 
was  John  Coalter.  The  governors  who  were  ex  offrcio  presidents  of  the 
James  River  'Company  from  March  27,  1823,  to  May  25,  1835,  when  it  was 
exclusively  a  state  enterprise,  were  James  Pleasants,  John  Tyler,  William 
B.  Giles,  John  Floyd  and  Littleton  W.  Tazewell. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  JAMES 
RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 

(1832-1835) 

ATTENTION  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  project 
of  connecting  Virginia  with  the  west  assumed  first  the  form 
of  a  stock  company;  next,  that  of  state  work  under  the 
agency  of  the  officials  of  the  old  James  River  Company ;  then 
that  of  a  state  enterprise  under  the  exclusive  control  and  sup- 
erintendence of  state  officials ;  and  that  under  all  these  forms 
of  control  it  continued  to  'be  known  as  the  "  James  River 
Company  ".  It  now  enters  upon  its  last  and  most  import- 
ant phase  under  the  form  of  a  joint  stock  company,  in 
which  the  state  invested  heavily.  As  such  it  had  an  event- 
ful career  extending  over  a  period  of  forty-five  years,  at  the 
end  of  which  it  succumbed  before  the  superior  claims  of 
the  railroad,  and  was  abandoned. 

After  the  Legislature,  at  the  session  of  1831-32,  had  de- 
monstrated conclusively  its  unwillingness  to  complete  the 
canal  along  the  James,  the  friends  of  the  improvement 
brought  forward  the  plan  of  a  joint  stock  organization,  ac- 
companied by  the  proposition  that  the  state's  property  on 
the  line  should  be  transferred  to  the  proposed  new  com- 
pany at  a  fair  valuation.1  The  antagonism  to  the  work  as 
then  conducted  was  so  deep-seated  and  the  desire  to  get  rid 
of  it  so  keen  that  the  proposition  to  dispose  of  the  property 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  fames  River  &  Kanawha  Co.,  p.  753. 
92  [332 


333]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION          93 

on  these  terms  was  seized  upon  with  avidity  by  the  Legis- 
lature, which  at  the  session  of  1831-32  promptly  passed  a 
bill  incorporating  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,1 
The  most  active  promoter  of  the  new  movement  was 
Joseph  C.  'Cabell,  an  able  and  talented  man,  who  may  justly 
be  called  the  founder  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company.2  Cabell  procured  his  return  to  the  House 
of  Delegates  at  the  session  of  1831-32  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  aiding  this  project,  and  took  a  leading  part  in  secur- 
ing its  charter.3  The  friends  of  the  improvement  met  to- 
gether and  held  three  conferences  in  regard  to  the  existing 
situation.  At  the  first  of  these  it  was  agreed  unanimously 
to  make  one  more  effort  to  prevail  on  the  General  Assembly 
to  resume  the  execution  of  the  works  at  the  public  expense 
and  under  state  control.  Considering  the  question  at  this 
juncture  as  mainly  financial,  Cabell  voted  with  the  other 
friends  of  the  improvement  for  a  state  system  with  the 
forlorn  hope  that  another  appeal  to  the  Legislature  might 
possibly  prove  successful.  It  became  evident,  however,  that 
there  could  be  no  well-founded  expectation  of  overcoming 
the  strong  opposition  of  the  sections  hostile  to  the  enter- 
prise "so  as  to  re-embark  the  state  in  the  permanent  sup- 
port of  the  scheme."  On  the  other  hand  the  sentiment 
among  the  members  of  the  Assembly  appeared  to  be  f avor- 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  James  River  &  Kanawha  Co.,  p.  753. 

2  Joseph  C.  Cabell  was  a  member  of  the  Va.  House  of  Delegates  and 
Senate  for  twenty-five  years.    He  was  in  the  Senate  from  1810-29,  in- 
clusive;  and  in  the  House  1808-10,   and  1831-35,   as  a  member  from 
Nelson  County.     He  was  Jefferson's  co-worker  in   founding  the  Uni- 
versity of  Va.,  and  a  member  of  its  Board  of  Visitors  from  1819  (the 
year  of  its  founding)  till  his  death,  and  was  twice  rector  of  the  Board. 
He  was  one  of  the  original  incorporators  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  and  its 
president  1835-46.     'Governor  Wise  announced  his  death  in  1856  in  a 
special  message  to  the  Legislature.    His  memory  is  revered  in  Virginia. 

3  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  760. 


94       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [334 

able  to  the  formation  of  a  joint  stock  company,  and  it  was 
thought  that  the  cooperation  of  both  the  Legislature  and  of 
individuals  might  be  secured  on  that  basis.  At  later  con- 
ferences between  Ca'bell  and  his  associates  he  endeavored  to 
impress  upon  them  the  futility  of  further  efforts  to  secure 
a  majority  of  the  General  Assembly  to  favor  the  resump- 
tion of  the  work  by  the  state.  But  they  still  thought  it 
worth  the  trial  and  Cabell  joined  them  in  this  last  attempt, 
but  with  the  understanding  that  if  it  failed  they  would 
unite  with  him  in  the  effort  to  procure  the  substitution  of 
a  joint  stock  association.  James  McDowell,  at  the  request 
of  the  conferees,  headed  the  movement  in  the  House  in 
favor  of  resumption  of  work  on  the  improvement  by  the 
state  and  made  a  forceful  presentation  of  the  proposition. 
The  Legislature,  however,  was  obdurate  and  no  further  at- 
tempt was  made  to  enlist  its  support  in  this  direction.1 

Upon  the  failure  of  this  effort,  Cabell  brought  forth  the 
alternative  measure  agreed  upon  among  the  conferees. 
Describing  this  situation  a  decade  later,  he  says : 

The  friends  of  the  improvement  being  then  in  utter  despair 
of  the  consummation  of  the  enterprise  through  the  medium  of 
the  state,  united  upon  this  proposition.  Upon  the  meeting  of 
the  committee  of  roads  and  navigation,  I  was  appointed  chair- 
man of  the  sub-committee  to  prepare  the  contemplated  charter. 
I  then  called  upon  Chief -Justice  Marshall,  who  took  a  deep 
interest  in  our  proceedings,  and  consulted  him  as  to  the  advis- 
ability of  the  course  to  pursue;  which  met  with  his  entire 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  760.  The  conferees  al- 
luded to  were  Geo.  W.  Summers  of  Kanawha,  Wm.  B.  Preston  of 
Montgomery,  James  McDowell  of  iRockbridge,  Charles  Cocke  of  Albe- 
marle,  Archibald  Bryce  of  iGoochland,  Wm.  iRives  of  Campbell,  and 
Joseph  C.  Cabell  of  Nelson.  These  had  been  the  most  active  friends 
of  the  James  River  enterprise  and  had  been  in  the  habit  of  holding 
conferences  in  its  behalf  during  the  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly. 
Ibid.  A  resolution  to  complete  the  work  at  state  expense  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  57  to  67.  House  Journal,  1831-32,  p.  224. 


335]       THB  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION          95 

approval.  It  was  to  confide  the  draft  of  this  important  instru- 
ment, along  with  a  schedule  of  its  principal  intended  provi- 
sions, to  men  of  such  universally  acknowledged  legal  ability 
as  to  remove  from  the  public  mind  every  possible  doubt  in 
regard  to  its  technical  accuracy  and  general  fitness  for  the  fun- 
damental basis  of  a  permanent  improvement  looking  to  future 
distant  times.1 

The  act  incorporating  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company,  which  underwent  a  degree  of  scrutiny  and  dis- 
cussion in  its  passage  through  the  Legislature  proportionate 
to  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved,  was  passed 
March  16,  1832. ~  The  preamble  recites  the  inadequacy  of 
all  previous  measures  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  connect- 
ing the  tidewater  of  James  River  with  the  navigable  waters 
of  the  Ohio,  and  the  expediency  of  incorporating  for  that 
purpose  a  joint  stock  company  to  which  the  interests  of  the 
commonwealth  in  the  James  River  Company  shall  be  trans- 
ferred at  a  fair  value.  Section  one  of  the  act  authorizes 
the  president  and  directors  of  the  James  River  Company  at 
once  to  cause  books  of  subscription  to  be  opened  in  the 
city  of  Richmond,  and  in  the  towns  of  Lynchburg,  Lexing- 
ton, Pattonsburg,  Covington,  Staunton,  Fincastle,  Lewis- 
burg,  Union,  and  Charlestown  on  the  Kanawha,  "  and  such 
other  places  as  they  may  deem  expedient,  and  under  the 
superintendence  of  such  commissioners  as  they  may  think 
proper  to  appoint,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  capital  stock 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  761. 

2  Va.  Acts,  1831-32,  pp.  73-87.    The  vote  on  this  measure  in  the  House 
was  75  for  to  37  against.    It  was  opposed  by  members  from  the  region 
bordering  on  the  proposed  route  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad 
and  the  Lynchburg  and  New  'River  Railroad.     Its  most  ardent  sup- 
porters came  from  the  Kanawha  Valley  and  from  the  counties  between 
the  headwaters  of  the  Kanawha  and  the  James.    The  James  river  dele- 
gation in  general  was  strongly  for  the  bill.     House  Journal,  1831-32, 
p.  225. 


96       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [336 

of  five  million  dollars,  in  shares  of  $100  each."  Thirty 
days  notice  was  directed  to  'be  given  through  the  press  of 
the  time  and  places  of  opening  the  books.  The  books  were 
to  be  kept  open  twenty  days,  and  if  three-fifths  the  capital 
stock  were  not  subscribed  within  that  time,  they  should 
again  be  opened  and  remain  open,  if  necessary,  until  the 
second  Monday  in  December,  I&32.1 

The  bill  then  provides  that  the  state  shall  subscribe  for 
10,000  shares  of  the  stock,  to  be  paid  for  by  a  transfer  of 
its  whole  interest  in  the  works  and  property  of  the  existing 
James  River  Company.2  No  subscription  was  to  be  re- 
garded as  valid  (except  that  of  the  commonwealth)  unless 
accompanied  by  a  payment  of  at  least  five  dollars  to  the 
credit  of  the  James  River  Company.3  In  the  event  of  three- 
fifths  of  the  capital  having  'been  subscribed  by  individuals 
and  corporations  other  than  the  commonwealth,  but  the 
whole  amount  not  having  been  subscribed,  then  the  com- 
monwealth was  to  be  regarded  as  a  subscriber  for  the  re- 
sidue of  the  five  millions.* 

When  three-fifths  or  more  of  the  capital  stock  should 
have  been  subscribed  "by  persons,  bodies  politic  or  cor- 
porate, other  than  the  commonwealth  ",  in  valid  subscrip- 
tions, then  the  subscribers  should  become  a  corporation  by 
the  name  of  "  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  ", 
and  should  become  the  successors  of  the  existing  James 
River  Company.5  As  soon  as  the  conditions  of  incorpora- 
tion had  been  met,  publication  of  that  fact  through  the 
public  press  was  required,  together  with  the  appointment  of 
a  day,  not  more  than  thirty  days  off,  for  a  general  meeting' 

1  Fa.  Acts,  1831-32,  pp.  73  et  seq.,  sec.  i. 

*  Ibid.,  sec.  ii. 
3  Ibid.,  sec.  iii. 

*  Ibid.,  sec.  iv. 
6  Ibid.,  sec.  v. 


THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION          gj 

of  stockholders  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  an  organization.1  The  organization  should  con- 
sist of  a  president  and  seven  directors,  and  such  other  of- 
ficers as  the  company  might  prescribe.2 

The  act  provided  that  within  thirty  days  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  first  general  meeting  of  stockholders,  the 
stockholders  must  pay  an  additional  five  dollars  on  their 
subscriptions  on  each  share  of  their  stock,  and  the  residue 
at  such  times  as  the  company  might  prescribe.3  When  the 
private  stockholders  had  paid  such  proportion  of  their  sub- 
scriptions as  would  equal  the  state's  subscription  paid  by 
the  transfer  of  the  property  of  the  James  River  Company, 
then  the  residue  of  the  state's  subscription  should  be  paid 
in  proportion  as  the  private  stockholders  were  required  to 
pay  their  subscriptions.4  Provision  was  made  that  at  the 
expiration  of  thirty  days  from  the  adjournment  of  the 
first  general  meeting  of  the  stockholders,  the  whole  inter- 
est of  the  commonwealth  in  the  works  and  property  of 
the  existing  James  River  Company  should  be  "  transferred 
to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  hereby  incor- 
porated, to  be  held  by  them  forever,  for  the  sole  use  and 
benefit  of  the  stockholders  ".6 

It  was  further  provided  that  the  James  River  and  Kan- 
awha Company  should  take  the  property  thus  transferred 
to  them,  subject  to  the  payment  of  15  per  cent,  per  annum 
forever  to  the  stockholders  of  the  old  company,  and  sub- 
ject moreover  to  the  pledge  of  the  surplus  tolls  of  the  com- 
pany made  by  former  laws  for  the  security  of  those  public 
creditors  who  on  the  faith  of  that  pledge  had  loaned  money 

1  Ibid.,  sec.  vi. 

1  Ibid.,  sec.  xi. 

1  Fa.  Acts,  loc.  cit.,  sec.  xvil 

4  Ibid.,  sec.  xix. 

*  Ibid.,  sec.  xx. 


98       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [338 

to  the  James  River  Company  for  the  use  of  the  common- 
wealth. But  the  General  Assembly  in  its  turn  pledged  the 
faith  of  the  commonwealth  to  the  new  company  that  they 
should  be  protected  from  the  payment  of  any  part  of  the 
principal  or  interest  of  the  debt  contracted  by  these  loans, 
and  pledged  itself  further  to  provide  funds  to  meet  the  in- 
terest thereon.1 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  charged 
with  the  duty  of  connecting  the  tidewater  of  James  river 
with  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Ohio  by  one  of  three  plans 
of  improvement,  at  their  election;  namely,  either  by  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  lower  James  river  canal  to  some  suitable 
point  on  the  river  not  lower  than  Lynchburg,  and  a  con- 
tinued railroad  from  its  western  termination  to  some  con- 
venient point  on  the  Great  Kanawha  river;  or,  secondly,  by 
a  continuation  of  the  James  river  canal  as  above,  and  a  con- 
tinued railroad  from  its  western  termination  to  the  Ohio 
river;  or,  thirdly,  by  a  continued  railroad  from  Richmond 
to  the  Ohio  river.2  If  the  company  elected  to  continue  the 
lower  James  river  canal  to  Lynchburg,  or  beyond  it,  as  a 
part  of  their  improvement,  it  was  required  that  the  canal 
should  be  in  all  its  parts  at  least  40  ft.  wide  at  top  and  28  ft. 
wide  at  bottom,  with  not  lest  than  4  ft.  depth  of  water  at 
all  seasons  of  the  year,  and  provided  with  a  convenient  tow- 
path  adapted  throughout  its  whole  extent  to  the  navigation 
of  boats  of  not  less  than  35  tons  burden,  propelled  by  horses. 
The  act  provided  that  the  bed  of  the  river  might  occasion- 
ally be  used  as  a  part  of  the  line  of  navigation,  when  the 
refluent  water  from  the  dams  would  admit  the  convenient 
application  of  horse  power  and  the  safe  and  easy  passage  of 
canal  boats.  The  canal  at  its  lower  termination  was  re- 
quired to  be  connected  with  tidewater  "  so  as  to  enable  the 

1  Fa.  Acts,  loc.  cit.,  sec.  xxi. 
3  Ibid.,  sec.  xxii. 


339]       THE  IN(^ORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION          99 

boats  which  usually  navigate  it  with  their  cargoes  at  all 
times  conveniently  to  pass  into  tidewater,  and  descend  the 
river  or  return."  x 

It  was  further  provided  that  the  works  required  of  the 
company  should  commence  within  two  years  of  the  passage 
of  this  act  and  be  finished  within  twelve  years  after  the 
first  general  meeting  of  the  stockholders,  on  pain  of  for- 
feiture of  the  charter.2  The  company  was  authorized  to 
enlarge  its  capital  if  five  million  dollars  should  be  found 
insufficient  to  complete  the  works  required  of  it.8 

To  secure  a  charter  for  the  new  corporation  Tiad  been  a 
comparatively  easy  matter,  but  to  secure  the  large  amount 
of  money  required  to  make  it  effective  proved  to  be  a  far 
more  difficult  task;  and  it  was  over  three  years  before  the 
project  had  progressed  to  the  point  where  its  organization, 
as  provided  by  law,  could  be  effected.  Meanwhile  the 
friends  of  the  enterprise,  led  by  Cabell  and  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  put  forth  heroic  efforts  to  make  the  movement 
a  success.  At  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  charter  it 
was  thought  by  many  that  if  a  reasonable  subscription 
should  be  obtained  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  thereby 
evidencing  the  proper  confidence  at  home,  it  would  be  com- 
paratively easy  to  secure  the  requisite  additional  subscrip- 
tion in  the  principal  cities  of  the  north.  But  this  proved  to 
be  too  fond  a  hope,  for  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a 
million  dollers  had  been  subscribed  by  May,  1832,  followed 
by  a  respectable  subscription  the  ensuing  summer  and 
autumn,  in  the  territory  along  the  line  of  the  improvement, 
assistance  from  the  north  was  not  forthcoming.  Hence 

1  Va.  Acts,  loc.  cit.,  sec.  xxiii. 

2  Ibid.,  sec.  xxvii. 

8  Ibid.,  sec.  xxviii.  The  company  was  further  required  to  keep  open 
and  m  good  repair  the  Kanawha  turnpike,  "as  well  as  the  extension 
thereof  to  the  mouth  of  the  Big  Sandy  river."  Sec.  xxxxiii. 


I0o     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [340 

the  promoters  of  the  enterprise,  when  it  was  found  that  the 
subscriptions  for  the  first  year  fell  far  short  of  the  three 
millions  of  private  stock  required  by  the  charter,  ceased  to 
look  for  aid  beyond  the  borders  of  the  state  and  began  to 
direct  their  attention  more  particularly  to  some  of  the  cor- 
porate bodies  at  home.1 

The  Charter  provided  that  the  existing  James  River  Com- 
pany should  cause  books  to  be  opened  for  subscriptions  to 
the  new  company.  This  it  did  by  dividing  up  the  territory 
which  was  more  especially  tributary  to  the  line  of  improve- 
ment and  by  appointing  commissioners  to  superintend  the 
work.  The  commissioners  displayed  great  industry  and 
caused  a  thorough-going  canvass  to  be  made.  The  amount 
of  money  required  to  make  the  charter  effective  was  the 
largest  sum  ever  attempted  to  be  raised  by  subscription  in 
Virginia  up  to  this  time,  and  it  was  recognized  that  it  could 
be  secured  only  by  the  greatest  exertions.  The  friends  of 
the  enterprise  labored  incessantly  to  make  the  movement 
a  success.  By  pen  and  voice  they  urged  the  importance  of 
the  project,  leaving  nothing  undone  to  enlist  the  interest  of 
the  public  and  to  persuade  the  wary  investor.  Chief  Justice 
'Marshall  evinced  an  abiding  interest  in  the  enterprise  and 
played  a  prominent  part  in  the  convass  for  subscriptions. 
He  was  chairman  of  the  meetings  of  the  citizens  of  Rich- 
mond upon  several  occasions  when  the  fate  of  the  movement 
hung  in  the  balance,  and  his  influence  aided  powerfully  to 
turn  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  project.  He  presided  over 
gatherings  in  Richmond  in  its  interest  in  May,  1832,  Aug- 
ust 1833,  and  November  i834.2  In  August,  1833,  he  was 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  I.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  753-54- 
1  Ibid.,  p.  763.  According  to  Ambler,  "  There  was  not  enough  capital 
at  the  command  of  individuals  residing  in  the  east  to  promote  such  an 
undertaking,  and  the  banks  of  the  eastern  cities,  remote  from  the  pro- 
posed central  line  of  improvement,  refused  to  contribute  to  a  scheme 
which  would  make  Richmond  more  powerful  commercially."  See  his 
Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  p.  184. 


341  ]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION        IOi 

a  member  of  the  committee  of  citizens  charged  with  the 
duty  of  promoting  the  subscription,  and  served  zealously 
in  that  capacity.  He  was  prevailed  upon  by  the  commis- 
sioners appointed  to  superintend  the  subscription  in  Rich- 
mond to  give  his  views  of  the  enterprise  and  of  the  charter 
to  the  people  along  the  proposed  line  of  improvement  in 
an  address,  under  the  modest  signature  of  "  A  Subscriber  ", 
but  the  authorship  was  well  understood  at  the  time.1  This 
address  was  printed  by  the  Richmond  committee  for  dis- 
tribution throughout  the  counties  adjacent  to  the  improve- 
ment, and  was  reprinted  for  still  more  extensive  circulation 
by  the  commissioners  appointed  to  superintend  the  subscrip- 
tion in  the  county  of  Nelson.2 

Marshall's  address  is  interesting  as  expressing  the  views 
of  prominent  Virginians  at  the  time,  as  well  as  serving  to 
illustrate  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  friends  of  the  en- 
terprise to  influence  subscriptions  to  its  stock.  He  says : 

It  is  with  you,  fellow-citizens,  whether  this  great  work  shall 
succeed  or  totally  fail.  You  are  now  to  decide  whether  it 
shall  raise  us  to  our  former  rank  among  our  sister  states,  or 
add  one  to  the  examples  already  given  of  the  ruinous  apathy 
with  which  we  neglect  the  natural  advantages  which  Provi- 
dence has  bestowed  upon  our  country  with  so  profuse  a  hand, 
while  they  are  seized  by  others.  With  those  contributions 
which  your  wealth  enables  you  and  your  interest  invites  you 
to  make,  a  direct  and  safe  conveyance  to  a  market  in  youf 
neighborhood  will  be  furnished  for  the  produce  of  your  labor, 
and  you  will  participate  with  your  sister  states  in  the  rich  com- 
merce with  the  west.  Withhold  these  contributions,  and  all 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  763. 

1  Ibid.  Curiously  enough  Beveridge  fails  to  mention  in  his  Life  of 
John  Marshall  the  aid  rendered  by  the  great  Chief  Justice  in  the  in- 
auguration of  the  James  .River  and  Kanawha  Company.  Marshall's 
interest  in  the  enterprise  was  great  and  his  influence  contributed  power- 
fully to  making  the  charter  effective. 


I02     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [342 

improvement  of  the  present  state  of  things  is  hopeless.  Your 
commerce  will  be  diverted  to  other  states,  and  you  must  seek 
in  them  a  market  for  your  produce. 

Our  commerce  with  the  western  states  depends  on  you. 
Unless  you  will  now  come  forward  and  make  an  effort  to 
preserve  your  share  of  it,  'tis  gone  forever.  It  must  be 
divided  between  New  York,  Pa.,  and  Md.,  leaving  no  portion 
of  it  for  Virginia.  Richmond  and  Charleston  have  made 
great  exertions  ....  but  cannot  of  themselves  accomplish 
this  great  work.  The  intermediate  country  must  put  forth 
its  strength,  or  it  must  fail. 

New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore  have  already  en- 
riched and  are  daily  enriching  the  states  to  which  they  belong, 
while  the  largest  towns  in  Virginia  remain  inconsiderable 
villages. 

All  who  hold  property  near  this  line  of  intercourse,  or  live 
near  it,  have  irresistible  motives  to  aid  it.  The  facility  with 
which  you  may  transport  your  goods  to  market  and  the  safety 
with  which  they  may  be  transported,  must  be  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  proposed  work.  The  freight  and  consequently 
the  expense  of  transportation  will  be  reduced.  Many  articles 
may  be  taken  into  estimate  which  are  now  lost  or  wasted  be- 
cause they  will  not  bear  transportation,  as  timber,  firewood, 
hay  and  iron.1 

Marshall  also  pointed  out  that  producers  might  deliver 
their  crops  of  wheat  and  tobacco  as  interest  required  and 
avail  themselves  of  the  highest  price;  that  the  country  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  line  would,  derive  immense  profit 
from  the  fact  that  a  great  part  of  the  money  subscribed 
would  be  expended  among  them  in  the  form  of  wages  to 

1 7.  R.  &  K.  Co.  Reports,  vol.  1841-45,  appendix,  pp.  109  ei  seq.,  con- 
tains the  address  of  Marshall  in  full.  It  is  also  found  in  Resolutions 
and  Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Nelson  County,  Appointed  to 
Open  Subscriptions  to  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Improvement 
(Richmond,  if 32).  All  copies  of  the  original  publication  appear  to 
have  been  lost 


343]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION        103 

workmen  and  in  the  purchase  of  provisions;  and  that  the 
value  of  landed  property  would  increase.  He  was  also  of 
the  opinion  that  the  stock  of  the  company  would  soon  rise 
above  par,  and  concluded  that,  "  the  calculation  then  is  not 
unreasonable  that  you  will  not  only  secure  to  yourselves  the 
immense  advantages  stated;  but  will  also  acquire  a  new 
property  worth  more  than  you  gave  for  it." 

The  most  active  and  effective  promoter  of  the  enterprise, 
however,  was  Joseph  C.  Cabell,  who  threw  himself  into  it 
heart  and  soul.  In  an  address,  "  To  the  inhabitants  near 
the  proposed  line  of  connection  between  the  tidewater  of 
James  River  and  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Ohio  ",  given 
to  the  press  in  Sept.,  1832,  he  says; 2  "  Subscribe,  else  your 
commerce  will  be  diverted  to  other  states,  Virginia  will 
decline  in  power  and  influence;  trade  will  be  divided  be- 
tween New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland,  leaving 
none  for  Virginia."  He  asserted  that  the  new  line  of 
improvement  would  increase  the  facility  for  transporting1 
produce  to  market,  and  the  safety  of  transportation;  that 
the  canal  would  be  superior  to  the  river  and  would  make 
possible  the  use  of  larger  boats;  and  that  freight  would  be 
reduced  in  cost,  and  farm  products  would  be  increased  in 
value.  He  showed  that  by  making  transportation  possible 
at  all  times  the  farmer  might  deliver  his  crop  of  wheat  as 
his  interest  required  and  might  thus  avail  himself  of  the 
highest  price;  and  that  the  country  along  the  line  would 
receive  an  immediate  benefit  from  the  subscriptions  ex- 
pended there  for  workmen's  wages,  provisions,  and  the 
like.  He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  road  from 

1  Marshall's  Address,  loc.  cit.  "Marshall's  account  book  shows  many 
payments  on  stock  "  in  the  James  'River  Company.  Beveridge's  Life  of 
John  Marshall,  vol.  ii,  p.  56  (footnote).  Marshall's  investment  in  the 
old  company  had  been  very  profitable,  and  he  doubtless  thought  the  new 
joint  stock  company  would  be  a  profitable  venture. 

*  For  Cabell's  address  see  Richmond  Enquirer,  September  21,  1832. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [344 

the  headwaters  of  the  James  to  the  mouth  of  Big  Sandy 
river  on  the  Ohio  would  be  the  shortest  and  most  conven- 
ient line  between  east  and  west,  and  that  wealth  would  in- 
crease, villages  rise,  and  a  wave  of  prosperity  would  sweep 
over  the  region.  With  reference  to  the  subscriptions  he  - 
alluded  to  the  fact  that  payments  for  stock  would  be  in  in- 
stalments, and  stated  that  it  was  probable  that  the  stock 
would  soon  go  above  par,  like  that  of  the  old  James  River 
Company,  whose  stock  was  then  worth  three  times  the  sum 
originally  subscribed.1 

Throughout  1832  the  canvass  for  subscriptions  proceeded 
vigorously  at  the  hands  of  the  commissioners  appointed  for 
that  purpose  by  the  James  River  Company.  The  fourteen 
commissioners  for  the  Richmond  district,  of  which  Mar- 
shall was  chairman,  opened  the  books  at  the  time  prescribed 
by  the  charter.  On  May  3Oth  a  meeting  presided  over  by 
Marshall  was  held  at  the  capitol,  and  a  committee  of  seven 
was  appointed  to  devise  means  for  advancing  the  convass. 
When  the  books  were  closed  for  this  district  June  1 1,  1832, 
it  was  found  that  Richmond  had  taken  10,024  shares,  or 
or  over  a  million  dollars  worth  of  stock.2 

In  other  districts  the  commissioners  were  no  less  active, 
especially  in  Nelson  county,  the  home  of  Cabell.  In  this 
county  seventy-two  commissioners  were  appointed  at  a 
meeting  held  August,  1832,  for  the  reopening  of  the  books 
of  subscription.  The  county  was  divided  into  six  districts 
and  practically  a  house-to-house  canvass  was  made.  Patri- 

1  Richmond  Enquirer,  Sept.  21,  1832. 

*  W.  Asbury  Christian,  Richmond  her  Past  and  Present  (Richmond, 
1912),  p.  120.  Richmond  at  this  time  had  a  population  of  perhaps 
18,000.  Its  population  in  1830  was  16,060;  and  in  1840  was  21,053.  Its 
growth  was  slow;  even  in  1860  it  had  reached  only  37,910.  For  these 
census  returns  and  others  from  1800-1878,  see  R.  A.  Brock,  Richmond 
as  a  Manufacturing  and  Trading  Center,  Including  a  Historical  Sketch 
of  the  City  (Richmond,  1880),  p.  7. 


345]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION        105 

otic  citizens  were  invited  to  cooperate  with  the  commis- 
sioners in  calling  upon  the  people  of  the  county  at  their 
homes  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  the  charter  and  secur- 
ing subscriptions.  A  pamphlet  was  issued  containing  Mar- 
shall's address  and  other  data  bearing  upon  the  project,  and 
was  widely  distributed.1  Similar  methods  were  pursued  in 
other  districts  for  which  commissioners  had  been  appointed, 
but  the  canvass  was  doubtless  closer  in  Nelson  county  than 
elsewhere  owing  to  the  personal  influence  of  Cabell. 

Despite  the  energy  displayed  by  the  promoters  of  the  en- 
terprise throughout  the  year  1832,  the  requisite  three  mil- 
lions of  stock  to  be  taken  by  the  public  lacked  a  great  deal 
of  'being  subscribed.  Application  was  therefore  made  to 
the  Legislature  (to  extend  to  the  end  of  another  year  the 
time  allowed  for  raising  the  subscription;  and  to  give 
authority  to  each  of  the  two  principal  banks  of  the  state  to 
subscribe  a  half  million  each,  and  to  the  city  of  Richmond 
to  subscribe  $400,000.  Accordingly,  the  General  Assembly 
passed  an  act  Dec.  8,  1832,  allowing  the  books  of  subscrip- 
tion to  remain  open  until  the  third  Monday  in  Dec.,  1833; 
and  providing  further  that  forfeiture  for  failing  to  begin 
work  within  the  two  years  prescribed  by  the  charter  should 
not  take  place,  provided  the  work  should  begin  within  two 
years  of  the  passage  of  this  act  and  be  completed  within 
twelve  years  after  the  first  general  meeting  of  the  stock- 
holders.2 On  Feb.  16,  1833,  was  passed  an  act  authorizing 
the  Bank  of  Virginia  and  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia 
each  to  subscribe  to  shares  of  stock  in  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  not  exceeding  five  thousand.3  In  order 
to  encourage  these  banks  to  take  stock,  the  Legislature  pas- 

1  Resolutions  and  Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Nelson 
County,  etc.,  pp.  7-9. 

*  Va.  Acts,  1832-33,  P-  55- 
» Ibid.,  p.  56. 


I06     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [346 

sed  an  act  March  4,  1833,  authorizing  them  to  increase  their 
stock  "  to  the  amount  of  any  subscription  which  the  stock- 
holders of  such  ibank  may  take  to  the  capital  stock  of  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company."  *  It  being  repre- 
sented to  the  General  Assembly  that  a  majority  of  the 
citizens  of  Richmond,  qualified  by  law  to  vote  for  members 
of  the  Common  Hall,  deemed  it  expedient  for  the  corporate 
authorities  of  the  city  to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company,  the  Assembly  passed  the 
act  of  Feb.  13,  1833,  authorizing  the  corporation  of  Rich- 
mond to  subscribe  to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany's stock  not  exceeding  $400,000  and  empowering  them 
to  borrow  money  to  effect  the  same.2 

While  the  bill  for  authorizing  the  Bank  of  Virginia  and 
the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia  to  subscribe  for  stock  was 
'before  the  Legislature,  it  encountered  violent  opposition  in 
both  houses;  and  from  various  quarters  of  the  state  came 
petitions  against  it.  Some  Fredericksburg  stockholders  in 
these  banks  memorialized  the  Legislature  Feb.  i,  1833,  ex- 
pressing surprise  and  regret  at  the  proposal  and  denouncing 
the  bill  then  pending  "  as  a  palpable  and  direct  violation  of 
the  charter  under  which  they  became  stockholders "  and 
alleging  that  it  was 

Unfair  to  compel  a  minority  of  the  stockholders  to  hazard 
their  stock  and  their  funds  ....  in  a  great  enterprise  of 
internal  improvement,  extremely  hazardous  and  doubtful  as 
to  its  completion.  .  .  ;  and  thus  to  be  forced  to  embark  their 
interest  contrary  to  their  own  inclinations  and  judgments,  upon 
the  sanguine  calculations  and  speculations  of  zealous  and 
warm  advocates,  many  of  whom  have  no  interest  whatever  in 
the  stock  of  the  two  banks,  but  whose  property  along  the  line 
of  this  great  contemplated  improvement  or  the  vicinity,  it  is 
supposed  will  be  considerably  enhanced  in  value.3 

1  Va.  Acts,  1832-33,  p.  56.  *  Ibid.,  p.  57- 

8  Senate  Journal,  1832-33. 


347]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION        107 

About  the  same  time  a  similar  petition  from  the  stock- 
holders in  the  two  banks  residing  in  Norfolk  and  vicinity 
represented  that  the  act  should  have  originated  with  the 
stockholders  instead  of  with  the  Legislature,  and  that  the 
manner  in  which  it  had  'been  introduced  had  taken  the  stock- 
holders by  surprise.  It  was  further  alleged  that  the  act, 
besides  disregarding  the  rights  of  the  minority,  would  im- 
pair public  confidence  in  the  two  banks  and  cramp  their 
operations.1  A  petition  to  the  Legislature  couched  in  sim- 
ilar terms  was  received  about  the  same  time  from  the 
Petersburg  stockholders  in  the  two  banks.2  The  opposition 
to  the  measure  is  described  by  Cabell  as  being  "  of  the  most 
vehement  character,  urged  in  both  houses  of  the  As- 
sembly." 3  Nevertheless  the  bill  was  carried  in  both  houses 
by  fair  majorities.  Obviously  the  Legislature  was  anxious 
to  rid  itself  of  the  conduct  of  the  improvement  as  a  state  en- 
terprise, and  was  straining  a  point  to  ensure  the  success  of 
the  subscription  requisite  for  making  effective  the  charter 
of  the  new  company.  The  policy  of  the  majority  of  the 
Assembly  was  to  do  everything  in  their  power  to  forward 
the  movement,  and  if  at  any  time  they  grew  hesitant  the 
powerful  influence  of  the  friends  of  the  project  was  freely 
exerted  to  resolve  their  doubts.  It  was  recognized  on  all 
hands  that  unless  the  movement  received  the  support  of 
strong  corporate  'bodies,  it  was  doomed  to  failure.  Hence 
the  zeal  of  its  friends  to  enlist  the  support  of  the  banks  and 
of  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  Richmond.4 

The  subscription  of  a  half  a  million  dollars  by  the  Bank 
of  Virginia  was  carried  by  the  overruling  vote  of  the 
treasurer  of  the  commonwealth,  the  state  holding  a  large 

1  Senate  Journal,  1832-33. 

Ubid. 

8  Eleventh  Annual  Report  /.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  754. 

4  Ibid. 


I0g     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [348 

block  of  stock  in  this  bank;  but  it  was  defeated  in  the 
Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia,  in  which  the  state  held  a 
smaller  share  of  stock,  in  July,  I833.1  These  were  de- 
cidedly the  strongest  financial  institutions  in  Virginia  at 
that  time,  and  the  failure  ,of  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Vir- 
ginia to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  was  a  heavy  blow  to  the  project.  The 
banks  of  Virginia  were  sound,  conservative,  and  well-man- 
aged institutions,  and  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company  did  not  appeal  to  the  more 
thoughtful  stockholders  as  a  judicious  act.2 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  p.  754. 

1  In  1804  the  General  Assembly  chartered  the  Bank  of  Virginia,  which 
was  the  first  chartered  bank  in  the  state.  Its  capital  stock  was  $1,500,- 
ooo,  divided  into  shares  of  $100  each.  It  had  branch  offices  at  Lynch- 
burg,  Petersburg,  Fredericksburg  and  other  places,  with  local  presi- 
dents and  directors  for  each  office.  A  stockholder,  however,  was  a 
stockholder  in  the  Bank  of  Virginia,  and  not  in  the  local  branches. 
The  state's  share  in  the  original  capital  stock  was  $300,000.  In  1814 
its  capital  stock  was  increased  to  $2,500,000,  the  state  subscribing  an 
additional  $200,000,  making  the  total  stock  of  the  state  in  the  bank 
$500,000.  In  1812  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia  was  established  with 
a  charter  similar  to  that  of  the  Bank  of  Virginia.  A  large  part  of 
Virginia's  Internal  Improvement  Fund,  amounting  to  over  one  million 
dollars,  was  invested  in  bank  stock.  The  state  invested  in  bank  stock 
not  so  much  because  the  banks  needed  its  aid  as  because  it  was  regarded 
as  a  good  investment,  profitable  to  the  state.  There  is  no  record  of  the 
failure  of  any  Virginia  bank  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  W.  L.  'Royal,  A 
History  of  Virginia  Banks  and  Banking  Prior  to  the  Civil  War,  pp. 
o-ii,  39;  (Richard  L.  Morton,  "The  Virginia  State  Debt  and  Internal 
Improvements,  1828-58,"  in  The  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  vol.  25, 
April,  1917,  pp.  347-349;  also  R.  R.  Howison,  History  of  Virginia  (Phila., 
1856),  vol.  ii,  p.  407.  See  also  Ambler's  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  p. 
184.  Ambler's  statement  as  to  the  refusal  of  banks  to  contribute  to  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  from  sectionalism  and  jealousy  of 
Richmond  appears  to  be  overdrawn.  Banks  subscribe  to  stock  when 
they  think  it  profitable,  and  sectionalism  has  very  little  to  do  with  it. 
In  the  case  of  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia's  refusal  to  subscribe, 
which  it  did  by  a  vote  of  about  two  to  one,  the  bank's  attitude  was  de- 
termined by  business,  not  sectional  reasons.  It  appeared  a  hazardous 
proposition  to  the  directors.  For  the  vote,  see  Niles'  Register,  vol.  44, 
June  15,  1833,  p.  248. 


349] 


THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION 


Cabell,  who  had  for  months  been  devoting  himself  ex- 
clusively to  promoting  the  canvass  for  subscriptions,  des- 
cribes the  situation  at  this  juncture  in  a  letter  to  Madison, 
in  which  he  says  : 

Upon  the  refusal  of  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Virginia  to  sub- 
scribe, I  saw  clearly  that  the  scheme  would  fall,  unless  the 
people  on  the  line  could  be  induced  to  subscribe  the  greater 
part,  if  not  the  whole  of  the  deficient  sum  of  $700,000.  ...  I 
urged  the  Richmond  committee  to  divide  the  25  counties  on 
the  line  into  four  districts  and  to  nominate  and  publicly  to  re- 
quest one  or  more  leading  men  in  each  district,  to  ride  thro' 
and  address  the  people  at  their  Court  Houses.  But  they  de- 
clined the  recommendation.  I  then  determined  to  go  forth 
alone  and  endeavor  to  arouse  the  people  in  the  counties  east  of 
the  Ridge.  My  first  plan  was  to  confine  my  scope  to  the  six 
counties  of  Albemarle,  Buckingham,  Nelson,  Amherst,  Camp- 
bell, and  Bedford;  and  the  town  of  Lynchburg.  But  having 
put  all  these  places  into  motion  (except  Campbell,  where  I 
have  twice  been  and  twice  failed.  .  .  .),  I  shall  set  out  on  the 
i6th  and  visit  the  people  of  Goochland,  Powhatan  and  Cum- 
berland, on  my  way  to  the  Assembly.  From  the  subscrip- 
tions already  made,  and  those  upon  which  I  may  reasonably 
calculate,  I  shall,  with  the  aid  of  my  friends  in  the  places 
visited  by  me,  raise  more  than  half  the  money.  The  counties 
beyond  the  ridge  will  doubtless  raise  a  fourth  part:  and  the 
balance  I  hope  will  be  taken  up  in  Richmond.  .  .  .* 

1  Manuscript  letter  of  Cabell  to  Madison,  November  14,  1833,  Madison 
Papers,  vol.  Ixxiii,  Writings  to  Madison,  January  19,  1833  -March  31, 
1834.  'Cabell  says  further  :  "  I  have  had  to  encounter  an  antagonist 
scheme,  put  forth  under  the  name  of  a  substitute,  from  the  town  of 
Lynchburg.  ...  I  have  just  returned  from  Lynchburg,  where  by  con- 
ferences with  the  leading  members  of  the  council  and  some  of  the 
principal  inhabitants,  I  have,  I  believe,  confirmed  and  settled  the  late 
vote  there  in  favor  of  a  subscription  of  $100,000.  A  party  in  that  place, 
headed  by  the  leading  advocate  of  the  late  Lynchburg  and  New  River 
Railroad  Co.,  aimed  to  overthrow  our  charter.  ...  If  we  succeed  in 
securing  our  charter,  the  unhappy  discord  between  the  James  River 
country  and  the  rest  of  the  state  will  be  composed,  and  incalculable 
advantages  in  a  prospective  view  will  result."  Ibid. 


!  I0     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [350 

The  subscription  of  $400,000  by  the  corporation  of  the 
city  of  Richmond  encountered  less  opposition  than  had  been 
manifested  in  the  matter  of  the  banks.  It  was  not  secured 
without  a  struggle,  however,  and  was  finally  made  after 
discussion  and  action  recommending  the  same  by  a  mass 
meeting  of  citizens.  While  the  matter  was  being  agitated 
in  the  city  the  Common  Council  had  appointed  a  committee  ta 
inquire  into  and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  a  subscrip- 
tion to  the  stock  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany on  the  part  of  the  city.  This  committee,  in  its  re- 
port to  the  Council,  stated  that  of  the  $3,000,000  to  be  sub- 
scribed by  parties  other  than  the  commonwealth,  about 
$1,600,000  had  'been  subscribd  by  individuals;  and  that  of 
this  amount  the  citizens  of  Richmond  had  taken  over 
$1,000,000,  leaving  a  deficiency  of  about  $1,400,000.  The 
report  further  stated  that : 

To  the  city  of  Richmond,  the  execution  of  the  proposed  im- 
provement is  of  the  first  consequence;  and  there  is  not  one 
of  her  citizens  ....  who  will  not  be  more  or  less  affected 
by  its  success  or  failure.  The  merchant,  manufacturer, 
tradesman,  laborer,  mechanic,  and  owner  of  property — all 
....  are  deeply  interested  in  the  completion  of  this  great 
work.  The  improvement  of  our  city  cannot  remain  much 
longer  stationary;  her  languid  commerce  must  receive  a  new 
impulse,  or  her  most  enterprising  merchants  and  citizens  will 
seek  a  more  congenial  location.  .  .  .  The  existing  resources 
of  the  City  of  Richmond,  united  with  their  probable  increase 
....  justify  a  subscription  ....  of  $400,000.  If  Rich- 
mond hopes  ...  .to  keep  pace  with  the  improvements  of  our" 
country  ....  she  must  by  some  decided  measure  executed 
within  a  short  time  secure  to  herself  the  trade  of  that  vast 
and  rich  interior,  which  is  so  eagerly  sought  by  the  rival 
sister  cities,  and  for  obtaining  which  they  are  willing  to  ex- 
pend millions  of  dollars.1 

1  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Hall  (no  date),  pp.  1-6. 


35 1  ]       THE  IN  CORPORA  TION  AND  ORGANIZA  TION        1 1 1 

The  report  of  the  committee  concluded  with  a  recom- 
mendation that  the  mayor  call  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  at 
the  capitol  to  consider  and  determine  the  matter  of  whether 
a  subscription  should  be  made  by  the  corporation  of  the 
city  of  Richmond.1  This  meeting  was  duly  called  and  it 
was  decided  to  make  the  subscription  of  $400, ooo.2 

In  August,  1833,  the  James  River  Company,  led  by  Gov- 
ernor Floyd,  ex-ofhcio  president  under  the  old  regime,  dis- 
tributed through  the  medium  of  the  Richmond  committee 
considerable  literature  bearing  on  the  improvement  to 
arouse  the  public  interest.  Cabell  continued  indefatigable 
in  his  efforts,  making  numerous  speeches  in  the  rural  dis- 
tricts and  promoting  needful  measures  in  the  Legislature. 
Throughout  the  year  1833  exertions  to  raise  the  required 
subscription  were  renewed  upon  an  enlarged  scale  in  town 
and  country ;  but  at  the  close  of  the  year  there  yet  remained 
a  very  large  deficiency  to  be  met.3  The  General  Assembly 
on  Dec.  7,  1833,  extended  the  time  for  keeping  open  the 
books  of  subscription  "  until  the  last  day  of  the  present 
session  of  the  Legislature  ".4  This  being  found  to  be  in- 
sufficient time  for  completing  the  subscription,  the  Legisla- 
ture, Feb.  14,  1834,  extended  the  time  until  Dec.  31,  1834; 
and  in  the  same  act  provided  that  "  when  half  or  more  of 
the  capital  stock  in  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany shall  have  been  subscribed,  but  the  whole  capital  shall 
not  have  been  subscribed,  then  the  commonwealth  shall  be 
regarded  as  a  subscriber  for  the  residue  of  the  $5,000,- 
ooo."  5  This  act  reduced  the  subscriptions  required  from 
those  other  than  the  commonwealth  from  $3,000,000  to 

1  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Hall,  p.  7. 

2  Christian,  Richmond,  Her  Past  and  Present,  p.  120. 

3  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  756,  762-63. 

4  Va.  Acts,  1833-34,  p.  101. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  101-102. 


!  12     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [352 

$2,500,000.  By  subsequent  acts  the  Legislature  extended 
the  time  for  completing  the  subscription  to  February  i, 

I835-1 

It  had  'been  hoped  by  the  promoters  of  the  new  company 

that  when  the  state  raised  its  subscription  to  $2,500,000  the 
success  of  the  enterprise  was  assured  and  that  it  would  be  a 
comparatively  easy  matter  to  secure  the  additional  private 
subscriptions  requisite  to  confirm  the  charter,  but  as  the 
year  1834  drew  to  a  close  it  was  found  that  on  account  of 
the  failure  of  many  subscribers  to  confirm  their  subscrip- 
tions by  a  cash  remittance  there  was  still  a  deficiency  of 
$750,000  to  be  met.2  Cabell  afterwards  gave  an  explana- 
tion of  the  situation  at  this  time  which  not  only  sets  forth 
the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  in  securing  the  confirmation  of  their  charter,  but 
which  incidentally  throws  an  interesting  sidelight  on  the 
general  condition  of  the  country  financially.  He  says: 

It  was  at  this  period,  that  the  panic  produced  by  the  removal 
of  deposits  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  spread  abroad 
throughout  the  land,  shaking  in  its  progress  to  their  very  f  oun~ 
dations,  the  system  of  both  public  and  private  credit,  and 
causing  individuals  everywhere  to  seek  to  lessen  their  en- 
gagements and  to  draw  in  and  husband  their  resources. 
'Among  other  institutions  and  enterprises  of  the  day  it  was 
well  nigh  levelling  in  the  dust  the  subscription  of  the  millions 
which  had  then  been  made  to  the  stock  of  this  company.  Early 
in  March  1834,  there  was  a  period  when  the  overthrow  of  the 
scheme,  by  a  general  and  simultaneous  abandonment  of  their 
subscriptions  on  the  part  of  the  private  subscribers,  seemed  to 
be  the  probable,  indeed,  I  may  say,  the  inevitable  result,  of 
the  panic  which  then  prevailed.  What  rendered  the  crisis 
still  more  formidable  was,  that  after  the  lapse  of  so  much 
time,  the  general  enthusiasm  had  begun  to  subside,  and 

1  Va.  Acts,  1833-34,  P-  69;  ibid.,  1854-35,  p.  70. 
'  Eleventh  Annual  Report  /.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  758. 


353]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION         113 

both  the  city  and  country  were  simultaneously  alarmed  by 
reports,  in  each  to  the  effect,  that  the  other  had  determined 
to  abandon  the  scheme.1 

Further  hindrance  to  securing  subscriptions  in  large 
amounts  from  individuals  was  found  in  the  eighth  section  of 
the  charter  which  provided  "  that  each  stockholder  should 
be  entitled  to  one  vote  for  each  share  held  by  him,  as  far  as 
ten  shares,  and  to  one  vote  for  every  five  shares  above  ten." 
According  to  Cabell, 

It  was  forcibly  represented,  that  distant  individual  capitalists, 
having  no  interest  in  the  marginal  property,  and  no  interest 
in  the  future  trade  of  the  line,  could  not  be  induced  to  invest 
money  in  a  scheme  in  which  they  would  appear  in  the  annual 
meetings  of  the  stockholders  merely  as  cyphers,  to  be  voted 
down  by  the  all  powerful  vote  of  the  state,  and  would  conse- 
quently have  no  real  voice  whatsoever  in  the  management  of 
their  own  fifnds.  .  .  .  The  legislature  in  order  to  furnish  still 
further  invitation  and  encouragement  to  make  new  subscrip- 
tions and  to  confirm  those  already  made,  agreed  to  alter  the 
scale  for  graduating  the  votes  in  the  general  meetings  of  the 
stockholders  ....  by  an  amendment,  passed  March  n,  1834 
....  which  provided,  "  That  the  whole  number  of  votes 
given  on  behalf  of  the  commonwealth,  shall  in  no  case  exceed 
one  fourth  part  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  given  on  behalf 
of  the  other  stockholders  then  present,  or  represented  at  the 
meeting."  2 

Though  this  amendment  to  the  charter  was  strenuously 
opposed  by  some  members  of  the  Assembly  it  was  carried 
by  a  large  majority,  and  was  subsequently  used  very  gener- 
ally as  an  inducement  to  subscribers  to  confirm  their  sub- 
scriptions.3 

1  Cabell's  Defense  of   the   Canal  and    of  a   Continuous   Water  Line 
through  Virginia,  pp.  755-756. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  754-756. 
3  Ibid.,  pp.  756-757. 


!  I4     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [354 

Inasmuch  as  the  confirmation  of  the  charter  was  deemed 
a  matter  of  especial  concern  to  the  city  of  Richmond,  a 
movement  was  set  on  foot  to  induce  the  city  to  subscribe 
the  $750,000  needed  to  complete  the  subscription.  A  meet- 
ing of  the  citizens  was  held  on  December  10,  1834,  presided 
over  by  mayor  Joseph  Tate.  Cabell  delivered  a  set  speech 
in  which  he  urged  the  expediency  of  a  liberal  subscription 
by  the  city.  The  chief  points  of  his  address  dealt  with  the 
subscription  as  an  advantageous  investment  of  capital,  and 
with  the  question  as  to  whether  the  project  would  collapse 
with  the  charter.  He  asserted  that  the  security  and  stabil- 
ity of  the  stock  were  guaranteed  by  the  alliance  with  the 
state  and  by  the  partnership  of  powerful  corporations  in  the 
scheme,  and  spoke  confidently  of  the  likelihood  of  good 
dividends.  With  reference  to  the  status  of  affairs  if  the 
subscription  should  fail  and  the  charter  be  lost,  he  stated 
that  in  such  an  event  the  improvement  would  cease,  as  the 
legislature  had  repeatedly  voted  down  every  attempt  to 
secure  adequate  appropriations  to  complete  the  project  as  a  i 
state  work.  To  avoid  such  a  contingency  and  to  insure  the 
success  of  the  enterprise,  the  city  should  rise  to  the  occasion 
and  by  a  liberal  subscription  secure  the  confirmation  of  the 
charter.1 

Cabell's  address,  which  was  very  elaborate,  resolved  the 
doubts  of  many  who  had  come  to  the  meeting  in  a  divided 
state  of  mind,  and  proved  to  be  a  powerful  influence  in 
carrying  the  movement  for  the  confirmation  of  the  charter  to 
a  victorious  conclusion.  A  report  was  made  to  the  gather- 
ing that  25,528  shares  had  been  taken,  of  which  the  citizens 
of  Richmond  and  vicinity  had  taken  10,722,  the  corporation 
of  Richmond  City  4,000,  and  the  Bank  of  Virginia  5,000, 

1  Address  of  Joseph  C.  Cabell  to  the  Citizens  of  Richmond,  December 
10,  1834  (Richmond,  1835),  pp.  1-23. 


355]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION         n$ 

making  a  total  of  19,722*  This  would  have  been  sufficient 
had  the  subscriptions  been  validated  by  a  cash  payment,  but 
so  many  subscribers  had  failed  to  do  this  that  there  was 
still  a  shortage  of  $750,000  in  bona-fide  subscriptions.  It 
was  resolved  by  the  citizens  present  at  the  meeting  to  ask 
Richmond  to  take  7,500  additional  shares.  The  city 
council  approved  this  action  on  the  ground  that  the  pros- 
perity of  the  city  was  involved  in  the  enterprise,  and  agreed 
to  submit  the  issue  to  the  freeholders  at  an  election  to  be 
held  Dec.  29,  1834.  The  election  was  duly  held,  and  the 
vote  stood  about  four  to  one  in  favor  of  the  subscription.2 
Following  the  gathering  at  the  capitol  and  the  action  of 
the  council  consequent  thereon,  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
the  Legislature  enabling  the  corporation  of  the  city  of 
Richmond  to  subscribe  the  three-quarters  of  a  million  re- 
quired. Thereupon  ensued  a  scene  of  excitement  almost 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  city,  for  many  of  the 
citizens,  including  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  non- 
freeholders,  considered  the  measure  for  this  additional  sub- 
scription oppressive  and  unjust.3  Nevertheless  the  bill, 
though  encountering  stubborn  opposition  on  the  floor,  and 
much  heated  argument,  passed  the  House  by  a  decisive 
majority;  and  this  despite  a  memorial  from  those  claiming 
to  represent  a  majority  of  Richmond  real  estate  vigorously 
protesting  against  it.*  The  fate  of  the  bill  now  hung  on 
the  action  of  the  Senate;  and  here  its  opponents  made  a  de- 
termined fight  against  it.  Another  vote  was  taken  in  the 
city  to  determine  more  clearly  its  wishes  in  the  matter,  and 
again  it  was  carried  in  favor  of  the  bill  by  a  decisive 

1  Christian,  Richmond,  Her  Past  and  Present,  p.  128. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  129. 

3  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  758. 

4  House  Journal,  1834-35,  doc.  12. 


n6     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [356 

majority  as  regards  the  number  voting,  but  by  a  rather  close 
majority  as  regards  the  real  estate  represented.  The  heav- 
iest property  owners  voted  against  it.1  The  bill,  upon 
which  in  all  probability  hung  the  fate  of  the  whole  enter- 
prise, was  ultimately  carried  through  the  Legislature  in  an 
amended  form,  Jan,  24,  1835;  and  as  a  compromise  measure 
due  to  the  hesitant  attitude  of  the  Senate.  The  act  pro- 
vided that  the  additional  subscription  of  the  city  should  be 
cut  down  to  $250,000,  making  Richmond's  total  contribution 
as  a  corporation  $650,000;  and  that  the  half  million  still 
lacking  to  complete  the  subscription  should  be  subscribed  by 
the  commonwealth,  in  addition  to  the  $2,500,000  previously 
subscribed.  This  raised  the  state's  subscription  to  $3,000,- 
ooo,  and  assured  the  confirmation  of  the  charter.2 

When  it  was  learned  that  the  movement  which  had  been 
carried  on  for  three  years  with  so  much  industry  and  zeal 
and  amid  so  many  difficulties  and  uncertainties  had  at  last 
succeeded,  there  was  great  rejoicing,  especially  in  Richmond, 
where  a  salute  was  fired  in  honor  of  the  occasion.3     It  ! 
seemed  as  if  the  dream  of  Washington  was  at  last  about  to 
be  realized,  and  that  the  project  which  he  had  been  chiefly;  \ 
instrumental  in  originating  half  a  century  before  was  now1 
to  be   pushed   forward   to  trimphant   consummation.     At 
last  there  was  to  be  a  through  line  connecting  Virginia  with 

1  Memorial  of  the  Citizens  of  Richmond,  House  Journal,  1834-35,  doc.  i 
12.  The  aggregate  affirmative  vote  of  the  city  represented  property  as-  ! 
sessed  at  $1,887,090;  the  negative  vote,  $1,581,577,  leaving  a  majority  of  \ 
$305,513;  while  the  amount  of  real  estate  in  which  no  vote  was  given  \ 

this  time  was  $6,536,668.    At  this  election  217  freeholders  voted  in  the 
affirmative,  and  80  in  the  negative;   115  non-freeholders   voted  in  the 
affirmative,  and  16  in  the  negative.    Of  the  217  voting  in  the  affirmative,  j 
the  real  estate  of  30  was  not  ascertained,  nor  of  3  voting  in  the  nega- 
tive; hence  these  not  accounted  for  in  the  foregoing  statement.    Ibid. 

*  Fa.  Acts,  1834-35,  PP-  70-71. 

8  Christian,  Richmond,  Her  Past  and  Present,  p.  129. 


THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION         117 


the  west,  and  the  towns  and  hamlets  along  the  James  River 
valley,  through  an  expanding  commerce,  were  soon  to  be- 
come thriving  cities,  while  Richmond,  the  fairest  of  them 
all,  was  to  become  the  metropolis  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

In  the  early  days  it  did  not  necessarily  appear  that  Rich- 
mond would  be  outdistanced  by  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and 
Baltimore  in  the  race  for  the  trade  of  the  western  country. 
Each  of  these  cities  made  a  special  effort  to  secure  that  trade, 
it  being  recognized  on  all  sides  as  the  key  to  commercial 
expansion.  New  York  sought  it  through  an  all-water  con- 
nection by  the  Erie  Canal  and  the  Great  Lakes,  and  the  suc- 
cess of  her  effort  stimulated  other  cities  to  great  efforts  to 
compete  with  her  on  even  terms  for  the  rich  prize.  Phila- 
delphia sought  this  trade  by  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments connecting  her  by  canal  and  railroad  with  Pittsburgh 
and  the  Ohio.  Baltimore  sought  it,  after  flirting  with  the 
Cumberland  Road  and  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  by 
the  construction  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad. 
What  is  ordinarily  overlooked  by  historians  is  that  Rich- 
mond also  sought  it  for  the  same  reasons  and  in  much  the 
same  way  as  did  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore. 
The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  Richmond's 
bid  for  the  western  trade.  It  was  thought  then  and  for 
many  years  thereafter  that  the  Virginia  line,  as  being  more 
central  and  direct,  and  favored  by  a  better  climate,  had  an 
equal  chance  to  win  the  prize.  Washington,  Marshall,  and 
Cabell,  and  other  leading  Virginians,  saw  clearly  the  neces- 
sity of  connecting  Virginia  with  the  west  if  she  were  to 
hold  her  own  commercially  with  her  sister  commonwealths, 
and  sought  earnestly  to  form  this  connection.  Far-sighted 
men  in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  were  no  less  desirous 
of  reaching  this  commercial  goal,  and  labored  for  it  man- 
fully. The  comparative  failure  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland, 
and  Virginia,  and  the  chief  cities  within  their  bounds,  to 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [358 

win  the  prize  which  went  far  to  make  New  York  the  Em- 
pire State  and  New  York  City  the  metropolis  of  the  Union, 
was  due  not  to  the  superior  foresight  of  the  latter,  but  to 
the  fortunate  situation  which  did  not  require  the  digging  of 
a  canal  over  the  mountains.1  The  completion  of  the  Erie 
Canal  in  1825  gave  New  York  a  long  lead  over  her  com- 
petitors, whose  transportation  problems  had  to  wait  for 
solution  on  the  development  of  the  railroad.  In  the  thirties, 
however,  though  numerous  railroads  were  chartered  their 
progress  was  slow  and  it  did  not  then  appear  as  a  foregone 
conclusion  that  they  would  supplant  canals  as  a 'means  of 
transportation.2 

Pursuant  to  public  notice  given  by  the  president  and  di- 
rectors of  the  James  River  Company,  the  stockholders  of 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  held  their  first 

1  References  to  the  Erie  Canal  abound  in  the  literature  bearing  on  the 
James  River  enterprise.     Even  before  the  Erie  Canal  was  commenced, 
the  plans  for  that  work  were  well  known  in  Virginia  and  were  influ- 
ential in  moulding  sentiment;  and  after  it  was  built  it  was  the  stock 
argument    for    friends   of   internal   improvement   in   Virginia,    as   else- 
where.   Sufficient  attention  does  not  seem  to  have  been  paid,  however, 
to  the  greater  engineering  difficulties  and  correspondingly  greater  cost 
to  be  encountered  in-  effecting  an  all-water  connection  with  the  west  by 
the  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  Pennsylvania  lines  than  was  the  case  with 
the  New  York  line. 

2  Contemporaneously  with  the  movement  to  secure  the  completion  of 
the  James  River  line,  resulting  in  the  chartering  and  organizing  of  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,   was  a  movement   for  railroads 
in  Virginia.    This  appears  to  have  been  of  the  nature  of  a  compromise 
between  the   friends   of  the  rival   modes   of   improvement.     The  first 
railroad  chartered  by  Virginia  was  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio,  on  March  8, 
1827.    During  the  session  of  the  Assembly  of  1830-31,  the  Staunton  and 
Potomac,  the  Loudoun,  the  Petersburg,  and  the  Lynchburg  and  New 
River  railroads  were  chartered.     These  were  lateral  lines,   feeders  to 
the  canal.     Poor's  Manual  of  Railroads,   1889,  pp.  83,  602;   Va.  Acts, 
1826-27,  chap.  27,   1830-31,   pp.   167-205;  Ambler,   Sectionalism  in   Vir- 
ginia, pp.  179-183;  Morton,  "The  Va.  State  Debt  and  Internal  Improve- 
ments," he.  cit.,  p.  361. 


359]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION 

meeting  on  May  25,  1835,  at  the  capitol  in  Richmond.  Dr. 
John  Brockenbrough  was  made  chairman  of  the  meeting, 
and  Samuel  McD.  Reid  secretary.  A  communication  was 
read  from  James  Brown  Jr.,  second  auditor  of  the  com- 
monwealth, making  formal  delivery  of  the  original  books 
of  subscription,  together  with  certificates  of  payment  into 
the  banks  by  the  subscribers  and  containing  his  endorsement 
for  their  payment  to  the  new  company.  A  committee  of 
nine  was  appointed  "  to  report  on  the  morrow  such  measures 
as  may  seem  to  them  to  'be  expedient  to  be  adopted  by  the 
stockholders  at  the  present  meeting."  x 

The  following  day  the  stockholders  reassembled,  704  ad- 
ditional shares  of  stock  being  represented.  'Chapman  John- 
son, chairman  of  the  committee  of  nine,  brought  in  a  report 
recommending  that  the  plan  of  improvement  be  "by  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  lower  James  river  canal  to  some  suitable 
point  on  the  river  not  lower  than  Lynchburg,  a  continued 
railroad  from  the  western  termination  of  that  canal  to  some 
convenient  point  on  the  Great  Kanawha  niver,  below  the 
falls  thereof,  and  an  improvement  of  the  Kanawha  river 
from  thence  to  the  Ohio,  so  as  to  make  it  suitable  for  steam- 
boat navigation  ".  The  second  recommendation  was  that, 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Stockholders,  First  Annual  Report  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company,  pp.  iii-iv.  The  following  stock  was  repre- 
sented at  the  meeting: 

Commonwealth  of  Virginia  30,000  shares 

Corporation  of  (Richmond 5,773      " 

Bank  of  Virginia 5,ooo       " 

Corporation  of  Lynchburg r,ooo      " 

Washington  College 100      " 

Individual  stockholders   4,845       " 

Ibid.,  p.  vi.  Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  an  overwhelming  major- 
ity of  the  stock  was  held  by  corporations,  not  by  individuals.  It  was 
the  subscriptions  made  to  the  stock  by  corporations  which  confirmed 
the  charter  and  enabled  the  company  to  organize.  The  total  valid  sub- 
scriptions made  by  individuals  were  under  $1,000,000. 


I2o     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [360 

with  certain  specified  exceptions,  the  canal  should  be  not 
less  than  35  ft.  wide  at  the  bottom  nor  less  than  50  ft.  wide 
at  the  surface,  possessing  a  depth  of  not  less  than  5  ft.,  with 
a  suitable  tow-path  and  guard-bank.  The  seventh  recom- 
mendation was,  that  "  the  canal  shall  be  extended  to  the 
town  of  Covington  on  Jackson's  river,  and  shall  be  divided 
into  three  divisions :  the  first  commencing  at  the  city  of 
Richmond  and  ending  at  the  town  of  Lynchburg ;  the  second 
commencing  at  the  town  of  Lynchburg,  and  ending  at  the 
town  of  Pattonsburg;  and  the  third  commencing  at  the 
town  of  Pattonsburg,  and  ending  at  the  town  of  Covington. 
The  tenth  recommendation  of  the  committee,  was  that  the 
improvements  on  the  Great  Kanawha  be  deferred  until  the 
commencement  of  the  execution  of  the  third  division  of 
the  James  river  canal,  and  should  then  progress  simul- 
taneously with  those  on  the  third  division  of  the  canal ;  and 
the  eleventh  deferred  the  execution  of  the  railroad  from 
the  town  of  Covington  to  the  falls  of  the  Great  Kanawha 
until  after  the  execution  of  the  other  parts  of  the  line.1 

These  resolutions  were  the  order  of  business  the  follow- 
ing day,  May  27,  and  the  entire  day  was  spent  in  discussing 
them,  as  they  by  no  means  met  with  the  unanimous  approval 
of  the  stockholders.  Wyndham  Robertson  sought  to 
amend  the  resolutions  of  the  committee  on  the  ground  that 
the  company  should  not  at  this  time  be  committed  to  any 
specified  plan,  but  should  await  more  complete  investigation. 
Robertson,  Nicholas,  Fleming  James,  Moncure  Robinson, 
and  Brockenbrough  favored  a  continuous  railroad;  and  the 
whole  question  of  the  relative  eligibility  of  railroads  and 
canals  was  discussed  thoroughly.  Cabell  and  Chapman 
Johnson,  however,  carried  the  majority  with  them  in  favor 
of  the  canal.1  On  May  28,  the  recommendations  of  the 

1  Proceedings  of  Stockholders,  ibid.,  pp.  vii-ix. 

1  Proceedings,  pp.   xii-xix ;    also,    Wyndham   Robertson,   "  The   First 


36l]       THE  INCORPORATION  AND  ORGANIZATION         I2i 

committee  were  adopted  after  certain  minor  amendments  had 
been  made;  together  with  thirty  by-laws  for  the  regulation 
of  the  company.  The  by-laws  provided  for  a  chief  en- 
gineer and  assistant  engineers,  and  fixed  the  salaries  of 
officers.1  The  twenty-ninth  by-law  provided  that : 

At  the  expiration  of  thirty  days  from  the  adjournment  of  this 
meeting  the  president  and  directors  shall  take  possession,  in 
the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  company,  of  the  work, 
property,  books,  and  papers,  of  the  former  James  River  Com- 
pany, and  transferred  to  this  company  by  their  charter,  and 
shall  take  such  order  for  the  preservation  and  management 
thereof  as  to  them  shall  seem  proper.  The  officers  and  agents 
of  the  James  River  'Company  now  in  place,  shall  hold  their 
situations  respectively  and  receive  compensation  and  perform 
the  duty  now  required  of  them,  until  otherwise  ordered  by 
the  president  and  directors  of  this  company.2 

After  the  adoption  of  the  by-laws  the  meeting  proceeded 
to  the  election  of  a  president  and  seven  directors,  in  con- 
formity to  the  eleventh  section  of  the  act  of  incorporation. 

Meeting  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,"  in  Richmond  Dispatch,  Jan.  25,  1879. 
Robertson,  in  this  article,  says  that  about  one-third  of  the  stockholders 
(per  capita)  favored  the  railroad,  and  that  the  recorded  vote  gave  the 
canal  an  overwhelming  majority,  but  that  the  vote  of  the  state  and  of 
the  corporations  decided  the  issue.  He  says  further :  "  Perhaps  they 
who  at  that  period,  when  efficient  steam-power  railroads  were  as  yet  but 
five  or  six  years  old,  and  the  best  science  of  the  day  had  limited  their 
future  useful  speed  to  15  miles  per  hour,  and  when  construction,  skill, 
material,  method,  and  the  locomotive  were  all  but  tentative  and  imper- 
fect, advocated  on  mere  speculative  amelioration  the  giving  them  prece- 
dence over  the  hitherto  uncontested  supremacy  of  canals,  more  require 
pardon  for  rashness  than  the  friends  of  the  latter  deserve  censure  for 
what  at  most  was  an  overstrained  prudence."  But  this  generous  dis- 
claimer of  ex-Governor  Robertson  does  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  he 
was  about  the  first  man  in  Virginia  to  recognize  the  supremacy  of  rail- 
roads over  canals. 

1  Proceedings,  pp.  xiv,  xviii-xix. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  xix. 


I22     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [362 

Joseph  C.  Cabell  was  unanimously  elected  president.  The 
directors  elected  were  Sidney  S.  Baxter  of  Richmond,  Rich- 
ard Sampson  of  Goochland,  Samuel  Marx  of  Richmond, 
John  H.  Cocke  of  Fluvanna,  John  Early  of  Lynchburg, 
Randolph  Harrison  of  Cumberland,  and  Hugh  Caperton  of 
.Monroe.1 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  now  stood  duly 
incorporated  and  organized,  and  ready  to  begin  work  on 
the  great  project  that  was  to  connect  "  the  eastern  and  west- 

1  Proceedings,  p.  xx. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA 
CANAL  TO  BUCHANAN 

(1835-1851) 

THE  president  and  directors  of  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  entered  immediately  upon  the  discharge 
of  their  duties,  being  urged  the  more  thereto  by  the  delay 
experienced  in  securing  the  confirmation  of  the  charter  and 
by  the  evident  anxiety  of  the  public  for  prompt  action.  At 
a  called  meeting  in  June,  1835,  they  adopted  the  necessary 
measures  relative  to  taking  possession  of  the  property  and 
works  transferred  to  them  and  to  receiving  the  tolls  and 
rents  for  the  benefit  of  the  stockholders.  Committees  of 
the  board  of  directors  were  deputed  to  receive  the  property 
from  the  officers  of  the  old  company  and  to  deliver  it  to 
the  officers  of  the  new  company.1 

Steps  were  taken  to  form  a  corps  of  engineers  and  to 
determine  the  location  of  the  canal.  Judge  Benjamin 
Wright,  of  New  York,  was  appointed  chief  engineer  and 
entered  upon  his  duties  promptly.  The  remainder  of  the 
corps  consisted  of  three  assistant  engineers,  three  surveyors, 
six  rodmen,  and  six  chainmen;  and  was  divided  into  three 
units,  each  consisting  of  one  assistant  engineer,  two  rodmen, 
and  two  chainmen.  Upon  the  nomination  of  Judge  Wright, 
the  directors  appointed  as  assistant  engineers  Simon  W. 
Wright  of  New  York,  and  Daniel  Livermore  and  Charles 

1  First  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  3-4. 
363]  123 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [364 

Ellet,  Jr.,  of  Pennsylvania.1  During  August  and  Septem- 
ber, 1835,  the  location  of  the  canal  was  pressed  energetic- 
ally, the  surveying  parties  "  making  their  way  with  diffi- 
culty through  fields  of  luxuriant  corn,  and  through  the  rank 
vegetation  of  the  low  grounds,  sleeping  in  covered  boats, 
amid  the  dews  and  fogs  by  night,  and  operating  under  the 
action  of  a  burning  sun  by  day."  2  The  line,  as  located 
by  the  assistant  engineers,  commenced  at  the  water-works 
dam  at  Lynchburg  and  continued  along  the  southern  shore 
of  the  James  for  ten  miles.  Here  it  crossed  the  river  by  a 
tow-path  bridge,  and  continued  down  the  northern  shore  of 
the  river  to  Maiden's  Adventure  dam,  passing  over  Tye 
river  by  means  of  a  tow-path  bridge,  over  Rockfish  river  on 
an  aqueduct,  and  over  the  Rivanna  river  by  one  or  the  other 
of  these  methods  as  might  later  be  determined.  The  places 
fixed  upon  as  the  most  suitable  sites  for  feeding  dams  were 
Lynchburg,  the  mouth  of  Tye  river,  the  head  of  Sycamore 
Island,  and  the  Seven  Islands.  By  Oct.  I,  1835,  the  loca- 
tion of  the  line  from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg  had  been 
nearly  completed.  The  line  from  Maiden's  Adventure  dam 
to  Lynchburg  was  divided  into  three  principal  sections. 
The  first  section  extended  from  Maiden's  Adventure  to  the 

1  Ibid.,  p.  ii.  Judge  Benjamin  Wright  "was  the  most  prominent  of 
early  canal  engineers,  being  sometimes  called  the  '  Father  of  American 
Engineering/  .  .  .  He  was  employed  in  1811  by  the  Canal  Commission- 
ers to  make  an  examination  of  the  north  bank  of  the  Mohawk  from 
Rome  to  the  Hudson,  continuing  this  work  in  1812  from  Seneca  lake 
to  Rome,  and  from  thence  to  the  south  side  of  the  Mohawk  to  Albany. 
He  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  middle  section  of  the  Erie  Canal  in 
1816,  and  from  1817  to  1828  was  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  New  York 
State  canals.  .  .  .  His  last  years  were  spent  chiefly  in  Virginia."  Ex- 
tract from  Noble  E.  W'hitford's  History  of  New  York  Canals,  vol.  i,  pp. 
1171-1172.  Judge  Wright  was  at  various  times  engaged  as  chief  or  con- 
sulting engineer  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware,  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio,  the  Delaware  and  Hudson,  the  Welland,  and  other  canals.  Ibid., 
p.  1172. 

8  First  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  11-12. 


365] 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL 


125 


town  of  Scottsville;  the  second,  from  Scottsville  to  the 
mouth  of  Tye  river;  and  the  third  from  the  mouth  of  Tye 
river  to  Lynchburg.  The  location  of  the  line,  within  each 
of  these  principal  sections,  had  been  given  in  charge  of  one 
of  the  divisions  of  the  corps;  and  was  but  slightly  modified 
by  the  chief  engineer.1 

In  Oct.,  1835,  the  company  advertised  for  contract 
seventy-three  miles  of  the  first  division  of  the  canal;  and 
in  December  following  let  to  contract  most  of  the  work, 
embracing  the  most  difficult  and  expensive  parts  of  the  line. 
Except  in  a  few  cases,  the  contractors  were  required  to  de- 
liver the  work  in  good  condition  on  or  before  July,  i838.2 
Prior  to  December,  1835,  there  were  three  requisitions  on 
the  private  stockholders  of  the  company,  and  the  amount 
thus  realized  was  $i6o,ooo.3 

In  compliance  with  a  memorial  of  the  stockholders,  the 
Legislature  amended  the  charter  of  the  company  by  the 
act  of  March  19,  1836,  by  authorizing  the  acquisition  of 
more  land  than  under  the  original  charter,  and  by  the  mak- 
ing of  more  satisfactory  regulations  for  the  assessment  of 
damages  with  regard  to  the  land  condemned  along  the 
line.4  The  damages  allowed  by  the  assessors  appointed 
under  this  act  amounted  to  $158,656.50,  or  about  $1,322.13 
per  mile  from  Lynchburg  to  Maiden's  Adventure  dam.5 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  12-13. 

2  First  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  16. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  17-18. 

4  Fa.  Acts,  1835-37,  P.  89. 

5  Second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  91-92.    Maiden's  Adven- 
ture dam  was  the  limit  of  the  old  canal,  which  extended  27  miles  from 
Richmond  to  that  point.     A  matter  of  interest  to  the  proprietors  along 
the  line  was  the  number  of  bridges  to  be  allowed  them,  a  question  that 
came  up  for  settlement  at  every  highway  leading  to  the  river  and  in  the 
assessment  of  every  farm   on  the  line.     Fifteen  road  bridges  and  83 
farm  bridges  were  allowed,  a  total  of  98.    Ibid. 


I26     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [366 

The  work  now  progressed  at  a  fairly  rapid  rate.  The 
line  of  1 20  miles  from  Lynchburg  to  Maiden's  Adventure 
was  divided  into  201  sections,  each  section  being  subject  to 
a  separate  contrast.  In  December,  1836,  there  were  161' 
sections  under  contract,  and  the  force  employed  on  the  work 
at  this  time  consisted  of  1,356  men  and  361  horses.1  To 
meet  the  expenses  thus  incurred  the  company  made  five  ad- 
ditional requisitions  on  the  private  stockholders  during 
1836,  which  raised  the  total  amount  received  from  this 
source  during  the  year  to  $442,672^ 

The  old  works,  known  as  the  "  western  improvements  ", 
which  had  come  into  the  possession  of  the  company  at  the 
time  of  the  transfer  by  the  state  of  the  property  of  the  James 
River  Company,  embraced  the  turnpike  roads  and  the  Kan- 
awha  river  improvement.  The  turnpike  roads,  consisting 
of  the  old  road  from  Covington  to  the  falls  of  the  Great 
Kanawha,  of  the  new  or  continued  road  from  the  falls  of 
the  Great  Kanawha  to  the  mouth  of  Big  Sandy  river  on 
the  Ohio,  and  of  the  Guyandotte  turnpike  from  Guyandotte 
to  Barboursville,  totaled  208  miles  in  length.  These  roads 
were  examined  by  a  committee  of  the  board  of  directors  in 
Sept.  1836,  while  on  a  tour  of  inspection  of  the  western 
improvements ;  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  old  mountain 
road  from  Covington  to  the  falls  of  the  Kanawha,  were 
found  to  be  in  good  repair.  This  portion  of  the  road  was 
defective  and  required  extraordinary  repairs.3  The  208 
miles  of  road  were  divided  into  six  districts  and  to  each  of 
these  districts  was  assigned  a  sufficient  working  force  of 
from  eight  to  twelve  men,  with  an  overseer  and  a  suitable 
number  of  draft  horses  attached  to  each  party,  to  keep  the 
roads  in  good  repair.4 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  93-94. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  108.    The  company  spent  for  new  improvements  during  the 
year  1836  the  sum  of  $229,348.92. 

» Second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  98-99. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  100. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         127 

The  Kanawha  river  improvement  consisted  of  artificial 
sluices,  of  not  less  than  40  ft.  in  width,  excavated  through 
shoals  so  as  to  connect  the  pools  of  the  river,  and  extended 
sixty  miles  from  Charleston  to  the  mouth  of  the  Great 
Kanawha  at  Point  Pleasant.  The  chief  revenue  from  this 
part  of  the  works  was  derived  from  tolls  on  salt,  which 
had  been  fixed  by  the  Legislature  at  one-half  cent  per 
bushel.1 

The  plan  of  operations  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  for  its  long  line  of  improvements  began  even  this 
early  to  be  the  subject  of  criticism  in  various  quarters. 
An  editorial  in  the  Norfolk  Beacon  in  September,  1836, 
urged  the  propriety  of  substituting  a  railroad  along  the 
James  river  for  a  canal,  and  favored  doing  away  with  the 
whole  canal  policy  of  the  state  and  substituting  railroads  in- 
stead. It  asserted  that  time  was  an  object  in  connecting1 
the  east  with  the  west,  and  made  a  special  plea  against  the 
James  river  canal  as  being  such  a  formidable  enterprise  and 
one  that  would  require  so  much  time  and  money  to  com- 
plete.2 At  this  juncture  the  Richmond  Whig  also  published 
an  editorial  asserting  the  deep-rooted  hostility  of  the  people 
along  the  line  of  improvement  to  the  enterprise  as  planned, 
and  urging  the  company  to  change  its  scheme.  The  Whig 
declared  its  belief  that  it  was  the  overwhelming  sentiment 
of  the  public  that  the  canal  would  not  meet  the  needs,  and 
buttressed  its  argument  by  alleging  sharp  complaints  that 
the  canal  already  in  operation  between  Richmond  and 
Maiden's  Adventure  was  quite  unsatisfactory.3  These 

1  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  237-38;  cf.  "Vindicatory 
Statement  of  Ezra  Walker,"  Eighth  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  376.  This 
part  of  the  company's  line  of  improvements  was  never  very  satisfactory, 
either  to  the  company  or  to  the  people  along  the  Great  Kanawha  river. 

1  Quoted  in  Richmond  Whig,  Sept.  23,  1836. 

*  Richmond  Whig,  Sept.  23,  1836.  In  the  same  issue  the  Whig  pub- 
lished an  article  by  a  correspondent  voicing  loud  complaints  against  the 
plan  and  management  of  the  enterprise. 


I2g     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [368 


initial  criticisms  were  but  an  earnest  of  the  stubborn  oppo- 
sition that  the  company  was  destined  to  experience  through- 
out the  whole  of  its  troubled  career. 

But  if  the  project  had  its  foes  it  also  had  its  friends, 
and  Governor  Wyndham  Robertson's  sessional  message  to 
the  Legislature,  Dec.  5,  1836,  gives  a  more  hopeful  view. 
He  says : 

The  vast  scheme  to  connect  the  waters  of  the  Ohio  and  the 
James,  happily  at  length  undertaken  and  now  in  progress,  will 
accommodate  the  trade  and  progress  of  the  west:  a  scheme 
that  proposes,  besides,  to  invite  to  our  markets  a  portion  of 
the  immense  trade  of  the  states  separated  from  us  by  the 
Ohio  river,  and  which  originally  commended  by  Washington, 
and  subsequently  sanctioned  by  the  approval  of  our  wisest  and 
most  discerning  citizens,  possesses  still  the  confidence  of  men 
whose  confidence  is  not  easily  yielded ;  and  even  if  viewed,  as 
some  view  it,  in  the  light  of  an  experiment,  is  yet  one  so 
grand  in  its  conception,  and  if  successful,  so  incalculably 
beneficial  in  its  results,  that  the  possibility  of  failure  that  at 
most  can  be  but  partial,  ought  not  to  weigh  against  its  vigor- 
ous prosecution,  or  suffer  the  idea  of  its  abandonment  to  be 
for  a  moment  entertained.  Whatever  now  may  be  the  issue 
of  this  great  and  too  long  deferred  improvement,  none 
who  have  witnessed  with  what  benefit  similar  undertakings 
have  been  fraught  to  other  states,  can  doubt  the  splendid  re- 
sults that  must  have  ensued  to  Virginia,  had  she  been  the  first 
to  invite,  by  suitable  inducements,  the  trade  of  the  west  to 
her  own  seaports.  .  .  . 

Surely,  in  the  irretrievable  loss,  in  great  part  at  least,  of  this 
vast  trade  she  has  paid  dearly  enough  for  her  supineness  and 
the  narrow,  timid  and  short-sighted  counsels  to  which  she 
has  listened.  Let  her  not  set  the  seal  forever  on  her  relative 
and  growing  inferiority  as  a  state  by  allowing  the  sole  re- 
maining stake  worth  playing  for,  already  jeopardized  by  her 
inertness,  to  be  wrested  from  her  by  the  superior  enterprise 
and  more  farseeing  policy  of  neighboring  states.1 

1  House  Journal,  1836-37,  pp.  11-12. 


369]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         129 

Judge  Wright,  consulting  engineer  of  the  company,  in  a 
report  during  the  fall  of  1836,  gave  as  his  professional 
opinion,  that  it  was  quite  probable  that  when  the  improve- 
ments of  the  company  were  completed  "  the  commercial 
transactions  of  Richmond  will  be  from  five  to  ten  times 
what  they  now  are,  and  will  steadily  increase  "/ 

While  the  merits  of  the  enterprise  were  thus  being  dis- 
cussed by  its  friends  and  its  foes,  the  company  was  actively 
pushing  the  works  along  the  line.  The  old  works  were 
put  into  good  repair,  including  the  canal  from  Maiden's 
Adventure  to  Richmond  and  the  seven  and  one-half  miles 
of  canal  through  the  Blue  Ridge.2  Among  the  "  old 
works  "  which  had  come  into  their  possession  after  the 
time  of  the  transfer  of  the  works  of  the  James  River  Com- 
pany, was  the  Blue  Ridge  turnpike  and  ferry.  The  Legis- 
lature had,  by  act  of  March  26,  1831,  appropriated  $9,000 
for  the  construction  of  this  road  along  the  mountain  section 
of  the  James  River  canal,  through  the  Blue  Ridge.3  The 
act  of  Feb.  25,  1833,  provided  that  the  road  "  when  con- 
structed shall  inure  to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany, upon  their  tendering  full  payment  ....  of  all  ex- 
penses ....  incurred  ",  or  at  the  option  of  the  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.  they  might  transfer  an  equivalent  of  their  stock  to 
«be  held  as  part  of  the  stock  of  the  state  in  the  capital  of  the 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.4  The  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  decided  to  take  over 
this  road,  and  on  April  2,  1836,  received  it  at  a  cost  of 
$9,258.80,  paying  for  it  with  92  shares  of  the  company's 
capital  stock  to  be  taken  in  part  payment  of  the  state's 
subscription,  and  the  balance  in  cash.5 

1  Second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  160.  Judge  Wright  had 
resigned  as  chief  engineer,  and  had  been  appointed  consulting  engineer. 
Ibid.,  p.  86. 

5  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K  Co.,  pp.  227-29. 

*  Va.  Acts,  1830-31,  p.  159.  *Ibid.,  1832-33,  p.  57. 

*  Second  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  108.    This  road  was  nine 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [370 

Contemporaneously  with  the  improvements  accomplished 
on  the  old  works,  proceeded  the  construction  of  the  new] 
works  projected  by  the  company.  The  work  on  the  new| 
canal  from  Maiden's  Adventure  to  Lynchburg  progressed 
energetically  throughout  the  year  1837.  The  president  re- 
ported : 

The  valley  of  the  river  has  exhibited  a  vast  scene  of  activity 
and  animation — the  assistant  engineers  and  their  parties  pass- 
ing on  their  daily  rounds,  the  principal  engineers  moving  in 
their  more  extended  circles,  the  chief  engineer  performing 
his  monthly  tours,  the  consulting  engineer  making  his  quar- 
terly visits — the  contractors  with  their  throngs  of  laborers 
and  teams,  forming  a  line  almost  unbroken  of  the  most  lively 
and  cheerful  industry  for  120  miles. 

A  corresponding  activity  has  prevailed  at  the  company's 
office  at  Richmond,  and  at  the  monthly  meetings  of  the  board, 
where  the  regular  system  of  monthly  settlements  and  pay- 
ments  has  responded  to  and  kept  pace  with  the  great  move- 
ments on  the  line.1 

The  total  force  employed  on  the  new  improvements  rose 
from  1400  in  1836  to  3300  in  1837.* 

The  lower  canal  from  Richmond  to  Maiden's  Adventure, 
received  from  the  state  as  a  part  of  the  old  works,  consisted 
of  over  four  miles  of  slack- water  navigation  as  the  bed  of 
Tuckahoe  Creek,  and  the  remainder  of  canal  proper.  This 
was  now  declared  a  principal  section,  and  the  company  de- 
termined to  reconstruct  it  as  a  continuous  canal  27.7  miles 
long,  thereby  transferring  it  to  the  class  of  "  new  works  ". 
Progress  on  this  part  of  the  line  was  slow,  and  the  unex- 

and  one-half  miles  long,  three  and  one-half  miles  being  on  the  south 
side  of  James  river  and  six  miles  on  the  north  side,  connected  by  a 
ferry.  Third  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  229. 

1  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K  Co.,  p.  251. 

a  Ibid. 


271]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL 

pected  delay  in  its  execution  was  the  subject  of  much  ad- 
verse criticism.  The  contract  system  proved  unsatisfac- 
tory, and  it  grew  increasingly  difficult  to  obtain  contrac- 
tors. Some  contractors  forfeited;  and  there  was  an  ex- 
tensive failure  of  the  system  of  contracts.1  Furthermore, 
the  general  character  of  the  force  employed  on  this  section 
was  objectionable.  About  two-thirds  of  the  laborers  were 
white,  consisting  mostly  of  Irish  immigrants.  In  May, 
1838,  they  struck  for  higher  wages,  with  demonstrations 
of  force ;  and  again  in  June,  but  returned  to  work  the  second 
time  on  promise  of  a  raise  of  20  per  cent,  for  those  who 
remained  to  the  completion  of  the  work.  The  summer  of 
1838  was  unusually  hot  and  some  of  the  Irish  died  of  pros- 
tration. At  this,  a  sort  of  panic  seized  the  Irish  and  about 
two  hundred  of  them  quit  work  and  migrated  north.  In 
the  autumn  the  force  became  more  stable  and  manageable, 
two-thirds  of  them  now  being  tractable  negroes.2 

The  construction  of  the  new  canal  from  Maiden's  Ad- 
venture to  Lynchburg  advanced  steadily  throughout  the 
year  i838.3  Beyond  Lynchburg,  the  canal  was  located  and 
construction  was  begun  (between  that  point  and  the  eastern 
termination  of  the  Blue  Ridge  canal;  and  seven  sections 
were  placed  under  contract.* 

At  this  time,  also,  a  survey  was  made  and  estimates  fur- 
nished of  the  whole  western  portion  of  the  company's  pro- 
posed line  of  improvement;  of  the  line  of  canal  from  the 
eastern  termination  of  the  Blue  Ridge  canal  to  Covington; 
of  the  railroad  from  Covington  to  Kanawha  river;  and  of 
the  proposed  improvement  for  steamboat  navigation  on  the 
latter  river.5 

1  Fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  323,  325-27,  329. 

8  Fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  331-32. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  334. 

*/Wd.,  p.  33<5. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  338.    E.  H.  Gill  executed  a  survey  of  the  water  parts  of  the 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [372 

Throughout  the  year  1839  the  company  confined  its  opera- 
tions more  particularly  to  the  construction  of  the  canal  from 
Richmond  to  Lynchburg,  and  the  works  immediately  con- 
nected therewith.  Construction  of  the  line  of  connection 
•between  the  canal  and  tidewater,  or  of  additional  line  of 
communication  between  the  canal  and  the  south  side  of 
James  river,  had  not  yet  commenced  and  was  deferred  for 
the  time  being.1 

The  canal  to  Lynchburg,  known  as  the  first  division  and 
being  146-^/2  miles  long,  was  completed  in  the  fall  of  1840. 
On  Nov.  n,  1840,  the  directors  of  the  company  left  Rich- 
mond on  a  tour  of  inspection  of  this  division,  arriving  at 
Lynchburg  Nov.  x  17.  The  condition  of  the  work  being 
found  satisfactory,  the  public  were  notified  that  on  Dec.  I 
the  navigation  of  the  whole  first  grand  division  of  the  canal 
would  be  thrown  open  and  the  new  regulations  carried  into 
effect.  When  on  Dec.  3  the  freight^boat  General  Harrison, 
accompanied  by  a  similar  'boat,  both  laden  with  merchan- 
dise from  Richmond,  entered  the  basin  at  Lynchburg  after 
traversing  the  entire  length  of  the  canal  without  accident, 
they  "  were  received  with  cheers  and  acclamations  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  town,  who  had  assembled  to  witness  their 
arrival."  2 

, 

In  the  course  of  the  following  year  various  additions  and 

line,  from  Lynchburg  to  Covington,  and  a  route  for  a  railroad  between 
the  Great  Falls  of  the  Kanawha  and  Charleston;  David  B.  Harris  exe-j 
cuted  a  survey  commencing  at  Covington  and  completed  at  the  Great 
Falls  of  the  Kanawha.    Gill  estimated  the  cost  of  improving  the  Great 
Kanawha    for   steamboat  navigation   from  Loup  Creek   shoals  to   the> 
Ohio  river,   a  distance  of  87.75  miles,   at  $408,098;  Judge  Wright,  ak 
$208,500.     The  estimated  cost  of  a  railroad   from  Covington  to  Loupj 
Creek  shoals  was  $2,602,950;  and  of  a  canal,  Lynchburg  to  Covington 
$580,477.    Fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  338,  346-47,  348 
422. 

1  Fifth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  515. 

*  Sixth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  661. 


373]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         133 

improvements  were  introduced  on  this  division  of  the  canal, 
and  constituted  in  the  aggregate  a  large  amount  of  work. 
Substantial  railings  were  placed  on  all  the  aqueducts ;  lamps 
and  lamp-posts  were  erected  at  each  of  the  fifty-two  locks 
on  the  division;  spacious  road  bridges  were  built  across  the 
canal  at  the  corner  of  the  public  warehouse,  and  at  the 
armory  in  Richmond ;  foot-bridges,  outlet  locks,  head  gates, 
additional  feeders  and  dams,  were  constructed.  Lock- 
houses  were  built  for  all  the  locks  on  the  first  division 
except  four,  being  cheap  wooden  houses  costing  from  $250 
to  $300.1 

At  the  close  of  the  first  year  of  operation  on  the  new 
canal,  the  president  reported : 

The  new  system  of  navigation  has  already  been  signally  suc- 
cessful in  the  reduction  of  the  price  of  transportation.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  year,  between  Richmond  and  Lynch- 
burg,  it  has  ranged  below  one  per  cent,  per  ton  per  mile  for 
agricultural  products  and  heavy  goods,  thereby  affording  a 
speedy  confirmation  in  regard  to  this  great  interest  of  the 
community  of  the  most  sanguine  anticipations  of  the  friends 
of  the  improvement.2 

Tolls  on  the  new  line  of  canal  from  Jan.  i  to  Dec.  i, 
1841,  amounted  to  $121,565.56,  which  was  double  the 
amount  received  on  the  old  line  the  preceding  year.  In 
order  to  transfer  quickly  the  trade  from  the  river  to  the 
canal,  the  new  tariff  of  tolls  had  (been  suspended  to  Jan.  i, 
1841.  A  fleet  of  canal  boats  had  to  be  built;  so  that  the 
spring  of  the  year  was  well  advanced  before  the  number 
was  sufficient  to  answer  the  demands  of  the  trade.  Every- 
thing considered,  it  was  felt  that  an  auspicious  beginning 
had  been  made.  The  regulations  prescribed  for  the  gov- 

1  Seventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  9. 
1  Ibid.f  p.  12. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [374 

ernment  of  the  canal  proved  very  successful,  and  hopes  were 
entertained  of  a  rapid  increase  of  revenue  as  time  passed.1 

Almost  from  the  beginning,  however,  the  company  had 
been  in  financial  straits.  The  General  Assembly  by  act  of 
March  21,  1837,  made  provision  for  the  payment  of  the 
state's  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  company,  exclusive 
of  the  million  subscribed  in  the  form  of  the  works  of  the 
old  company,  amounting  to  $1,990,800,  which  was  the 
residue  of  her  original  subscription  of  $2,000,000  in  money. 
The  sum  of  $9,200  had  already  been  paid  in  the  transfer  of 
the  Blue  Ridge  turnpike  from  the  state  to  the  company. 
The  act  provided  that  the  requisitions  on  the  stock  of  the 
state  should  be  met  by  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  which 
was  empowered  to  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  state 
and  apply  the  same  to  the  payment  of  the  requisitions  of 
the  company  as  these  arose  "  at  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  proportion  with  the  requisitions  made  by  the  said 
company  on  the  stockholders  generally."  2  The  Board  of 
Public  Works,  in  conformity  to  this  act,  by  public  notice 
proposed  a  large  loan  to  the  state,  but  the  amount  thus  pro- 
cured was  less  than  $100,000,  a  goodly  portion  of  which 
was  appropriated  to  other  improvements  along  with  the 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  After  the  failure  of  this  loan,  other  pro- 
vision had  to  be  made  to  meet  the  state's  requisitions, 
amounting  during  the  year  1837  to  $780,000.  At  the  same 
time  as  the  state  loan  was  being  agitated,  the  common 
council  of  Richmond  advertised  for  a  loan  of  $50,000  to 
meet  the  requisition  made  on  it  by  the  company;  but  the 
proposed  loan  was  a  total  failure.  Meanwhile  the  situation 
of  the  company  was  becoming  critical,  and  the  failure  of 
both  the  state  and  city  loans  threatened  a  suspension  of  its 
operations  unless  assistance  was  promptly  forthcoming.  In 

1  Ibid. 

*  Va.  Acts,  1836-37,  chapter  101. 


375]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         135 

this  extremity  it  was  proposed  to  receive  from  the  Board  of 
Public  Works,  in  payment  of  the  requisitions  made  upon 
the  state,  certificates  of  the  stock  of  the  state  at  par  value, 
and  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent.  This  proposal  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  Board  of  Public  Works  on  behalf  of  the 
state  and  the  stock  was  issued  accordingly.1 

The  common  council  of  Richmond  in  its  turn  proposed 
as  the  only  practicable  means  of  meeting  its  obligations  to 
the  company,  amounting  to  $144,200,  to  issue  corporation 
stock,  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  payable  semi-annually. 
The  company  accepted  this  proposition  and  the  stock  was 
issued  to  it  July  i,  1837.  The  common  council  of  Lynch- 
burg  likewise  issued  stock  to  discharge  a  'balance  of  $12,500 
then  due  on  its  subscription,  and  for  a  further  balance  of 
$5,000  to  become  due  July  25,  1837.  Thus  the  company 
stood  heavily  loaded  with  state  and  city  stock  at  a  time 
when  it  stood  in  special  need  of  a  large  amount  of  cash. 
While  it  had  given  its  consent  to  these  arrangements,  it  had 
done  so  very  reluctantly.  The  stock  issued  by  Richmond 
and  Lynchburg  proved  to  be  hard  to  dispose  of,  and  was 
of  no  immediate  benefit  to  the  company.2 

Arrangements  were  made  with  the  Bank  of  Virginia, 
whereby  the  bank  became  an  agent  of  the  company  to  sell 
the  stock  k  had  received  from  the  state.  The  president  of 
the  bank  visited  the  northern  cities  and  disposed  of  large 
blocks  of  the  stock,  and  the  bank  further  aided  the  com- 
pany by  making  advances  on  the  credit  of  the  stock.  But 
these  funds  proved  inadequate  to  the  company's  needs,  and 
it  was  forced  to  resort  to  the  anticipation  of  its  requisitions 
to  secure  funds  to  tide  it  over  the  emergency.  On  April 
12,  1837,  the  Bank  of  Virginia  loaned  the  company  $50,000, 
in  anticipation  of  the  two  requisitions  to  become  due  and 

1  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K  Co.,  pp.  253-254. 
9  Third  Annual  Report  I.  R.  &  K  Co.,  p.  254. 


I36     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [376 

payable  from  the  bank  on  May  25  and  July  25  of  that  year. 
Further  loans  were  made  to  the  company  by  the  Farmers' 
Bank  of  Virginia  and  by  the  branch  bank  of  the  Bank  of 
Virginia  at  Lynchburg.  By  this  means  the  company  man- 
aged meet  the  obligations  incurred  during  the  year  ending 
Nov.  30,  1837,  which  amounted  to  $1,052,477  for  the  new 
improvemens  being  constructed.1 

Within  twelve  months  after  the  foregoing  arrangements 
had  been  effected  the  affairs  of  the  company  were  again  in 
a  critical  condition,  and  it  became  evident  that  an  increase 
of  capital  would  be  required  for  the  continued  prosecution 
of  the  work  on  the  canal  between  Richmond  and  Lynchburg. 
At  this  juncture  the  company  petitioned  the  Legislature,  at 
the  session  of  1838-39,  to  subscribe  on  the  part  of  the  state 
three-fifths  of  the  sum  of  six  million  dollars  proposed  to  be 
added  to  the  company's  capital  stock,  and  to  give  the 
company  the  authority  to  subscribe  the  other  two-fifths  of 
this  additional  capital  and  to  borrow  the  amount  of  the 
subscription  upon  the  credit  of  the  corporate  funds.  It 
was  thought  by  the  stockholders  that  this  loan,  if  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Legislature,  could  be  negotiated  in  Europe  at 
an  interest  not  exceeding  five  per  cent,  and  that  the  plan 
would  in  other  respects  be  decidedly  advantageous.2  The 
Legislature,  however,  refused  to  concur  in  these  views, 
and  passed  instead  the  act  of  March  23,  1839,  by  which 
the  company  was  authorized  to  borrow  $1,500,000  on  the 
credit  of  the  corporate  funds,  and  the  faith  of  the  state  was 
pledged  as  guarantee  for  the  punctual  payment  of  the  in- 
terest and  the  redemption  of  the  principal.3 

This  act  was  objected  to  by  Cabell  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  introducing  the  policy  of  operating  exclusively  on  bor- 

1  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K  Co.,  pp.  254-55. 

2  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  700. 
*  Va.  Acts,  1839,  pp.  59-62. 


377]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         137 

rowed  funds  at  an  earlier  period  than  seemed  expedient. 
Nevertheless,  it  was  felt  that  the  company  could  not  afford 
to  reject  it,  and  it  was  accordingly  accepted  and  adopted  as 
an  amendment  of  the  charter.  No  mortgage  or  other  speci- 
fic lien  was  required  of  the  company  to  secure  the  loan  thus 
authorized.1  On  account  of  the  depressed  state  of  the 
money  market  at  this  time,  "both  at  home  and  abroad,  it 
was  found  to  be  impossible  to  negotiate  the  loan  of  $1,500,- 
ooo  during  the  year;  and  the  company,  in  order  to  meet 
its  pressing  financial  obligations  was  forced  to  resort  to  the 
issue  of  postnotes  to  the  amount  of  $703, ooo.2 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  very  un- 
fortunate in  that  at  the  very  beginning  of  its  career  it  had 
to  pass  through  two  national  financial  crises  which  had  a 
damaging  effect  on  its  fortunes.  Attention  has  been  called 
to  the  effect  of  the  withdrawal  of  deposits  in  Jackson's  ad- 
ministration upon  the  movement  to  secure  the  subscriptions 
requisite  to  confirm  the  company's  charter.  Having  once 
secured  its  charter  and  begun  to  construct  its  works,  it  en- 
countered the  panic  of  1837,  the  result  of  which  was  not 
only  to  influence  the  legislature  to  reject  its  petition  for  the 
increase  of  its  capital  stock  by  a  substantial  sum,  but  to 
render  it  difficult  to  negotiate  the  loan  that  the  state  had 
authorized.  Meanwhile  the  company,  being  in  the  midst 
of  its  work  of  construction,  required  a  large  amount  of 
money  to  defray  its  accumulating  indebtedness.  Under 
ordinary  conditions  a  loan  could  doubtless  have  been  se- 
cured, but  the  effect  of  the  panic  was  to  preclude  its  pos- 
sibility in  this  country  at  that  time.  Neither  was  the  time 
opportune  for  negotiating  a  loan  abroad,  whence  so  much 
money  had  come  to  finance  American  enterprises,  because 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  700. 

2  Fifth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  552. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [378 

at  this  juncture  Europe  was  also  experiencing  a  period  of 
financial  depression.  Thus  the  company  was  caught  on  all 
sides  in  the  tide  of  adverse  circumstance.1 

Throughout  1840  negotiations  proceeded  with  a  view  to 
a  loan  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  23,  1839. 
Information  having  'been  received  in  February,  1840,  that 
Gen.  James  Hamilton,  of  South  Carolina,  was  about  to 
proceed  to  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  a  loan 
for  the  Republic  of  Texas,  the  company  entered  into  com- 
munication with  him  with  a  view  to  engaging  his  services 
to  effect  the  desired  loan.  On  the  invitation  of  the  com- 
pany, Gen.  Hamilton  came  to  Richmond  in  April,  1840,  en 
route  to  Europe,  and  entered  into  contract  with  the  dir- 
ectors, by  which  he  undertook  the  negotiation  of  its  loan 
as  the  authorized  agent  of  the  company.  He  was  limited 
to  $550,000;  and  five  per  cent,  sterling  bonds  to  an  equal 
amount,  guaranteed  by  the  state,  were  delivered  to  him 
along  with  a  power  of  attorney  and  suitable  instructions. 
Previously  to  embarking  for  Europe,  in  May  1840,  he 
secured  a  temporary  loan  of  $50,000  from  the  New  York 
Banking  Company.2  Most  unfortunate  for  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  the  outcome  of  Hamil- 
ton's agency,  for  while  in  Europe  he  "  hypothecated  15,800 
pounds  sterling  of  the  bonds  of  the  company  with  a  mer- 
cantile house  in  Holland  to  secure  some  loan  negotiated  with 

1  Cabell's  Defense  of  the  Canal  and  of  a  Continuous  Water  Line 
through  Virginia,  p.  742.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  panic  of  1837 
was  not  felt  as  seriously  in  Virginia  as  elsewhere.  No  Virginia  bank 
failed  at  this  time;  the  conservatism  of  the  state  government  in  finan- 
cial matters  stood  it  in  good  stead ;  the  policy  of  the  state  in  borrowing 
money  to  aid  internal  improvements  received  no  material  check;  the 
state's  credit  continued  excellent.  Cf.  R.  L.  Morton,  "  The  Virginia 
State  Debt  and  Internal  Improvements,  1820-38,"  in  The  Journal  of  Po- 
litical Economy,  April,  1917,  pp.  370-371. 

*  Sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  670-71. 


379]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         139 

them  in  which  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  had 
no  interest  or  agency."  x  This  unexpected  diversion  of  the 
funds  of  the  company  from  the  purpose  to  which  they  were 
entrusted  to  Hamilton  "  filled  the  company  with  surprise, 
mortification,  and  regret,  which  added  to  their  financial  em- 
barassments  and  exposed  them  to  ultimate  loss."  2  Gen. 
Hamilton  later  endeavored  to  make  amends  to  the  com- 
pany for  the  misappropriation  of  its  funds  by  executing 
three  papers  to  indemnify  the  company  for  its  loss.  They 
were  intended  to  give  the  company  a  lien  on  certain  pro- 
perties held  by  Hamilton  in  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Georgia, 
and  South  Carolina,  the  supposed  value  of  which  was  esti- 
mated by  him  at  $87,750.  Cabell  said  of  this  lien,  how- 
ever, "  Its  ultimate  value  seemed  doubtful,  and  it  couldn't 
be  relied  on  as  furnishing  the  means  of  immediate  relief."  3 
The  company  ultimately  lost  $63,820  by  reason  of  this  trans- 
action, and  it  was  the  beginning  of  the  more  serious  fin- 
ancial difficulties  which  dogged  its  career  ever  afterwards.4 
Nor  did  the  company  recover  its  bonds  hypothecated  by 
Hamilton  with  the  Dutch  house  of  Determeyer,  Westlingh 
&  Son,  of  Amsterdam,  until  Feb.  i844.5 

Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  the  communication  from 
Hamilton  informing  the  board  of  directors  that  "  a  credit 
had  been  raised  with  Messrs  Determeyer,  Westlingh  &  Son 

1  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  96 ;  also  Twenty-sixth  Re- 
port, ibid.,  p.  700 ;  and  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1853-54,  doc.  62,  p.  26. 

2  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  97. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  101.  Hamilton  applied  the  money  secured  on  the  security 
of  the  company's  bonds  (from  the  Amsterdam  house)  chiefly  to  the 
uses  of  the  Texan  government  "  under  the  expectation,  as  he  afterwards 
declared,  that  the  misappropriation  would  be  of  very  short  duration, 
and  that  it  would  be  rectified  from  the  proceeds  of  the  Texan  negotia- 
tions." Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  700. 

4  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  587. 

*  Tenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  497-98. 


I40     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [380 

of  Amsterdam,  on  an  hypothecation  of  a  portion  of  the  com- 
pany's bonds,  and  that  this  credit  had  been  applied  to  other 
purposes  than  those  of  the  company "/  this  distressing! 
news  was  communicated  to  the  Legislature  then  in  session. 
The  company  accompanied  this  communication  with  a  mem- 
orial praying  such  relief  as  would  maintain  its  credit  and 
that  of  the  state  as  a  member  of  the  company  and  the  en- 
dorser of  its  bonds.2  The  specific  relief  asked  for  was  a 
loan  of  $250,000,  which  was  urgently  needed  by  the  com- 
pany to  meet  pressing  obligations,  to  pay  off  temporary 
loans,  to  take  up  post-notes,  and  to  relieve  the  income  from 
the  burden  of  redeeming  these  notes.3 

In  response  to  this  memorial  the  General  Assembly 
passed  the  act  of  March  25,  1842.*  This  act  was  passed 
during  a  period  of  considerable  excitement  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, just  after  the  tidings  had  been  received  that  half  a 
million  of  the  company's  guaranteed  bonds  were  tied  up 
abroad  by  Hamilton's  transactions,  and  "  was  clogged  in 
its  course  by  an  active  and  violent  opposition."  This  un- 
fortunate affair,  which  was  the  source  of  endless  difficulties 
for  the  company,  was  seized  upon  "  as  a  fit  occasion  for 
violent  assaults  upon  the  administration  of  its  affairs."  5 
The  bill,  as  finally  passed,  was  far  different  from  that  which 
was  first  proposed;  and  while  it  authorized  a  loan  to  the 
company  of  $250,000,  the  conditions  and  restrictions  an- 
nexed were  such  as  to  impair  seriously  the  independence  and 
credit  of  the  company.  This  act  required,  among  other 
things : 
First,  That  the  company  should  execute  to  the  Board  of 

1  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  83. 

2  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  700. 
8  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  97. 

4  Va.  Acts,  1841-42,  pp.  72-75. 

*  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  87. 


381]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         141 

Pu'blic  Works  a  mortgage  or  other  specific  lien  on  all  their 
property,  real  and  personal,  and  upon  the  net  income  of  all 
their  tolls  and  receipts. 

(1)  To  secure  the  payment  of  the  annuity  to  the  old 
James  River  Co. 

(2)  To  secure  the  state  from  loss,  'by  reason  of  her  re- 
sponsibility for  the  guaranteed  loan  under  the  act  of  March 

23,  1839- 

( 3 )  To  secure  the  payment,  semi-annually,  of  the  interest, 
and  repayment  of  the  principal  certificates  then  authorized 
to  be  issued. 

Second,  That  when  redeemed,  (the  company  should  return 
to  the  treasurer  of  the  commonwealth  $100,000  worth  of 
the  guaranteed  bonds,  to  be  by  him  canceled. 
Third,  That  the  company,  until  authorized  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, should  enter  into  no  new  contract  or  engagement,  for 
work  to  be  done  on  the  line  of  its  improvement. 
Fourth,  That  the  certificates  of  stock  then  authorized  to  be 
issued  should  not  at  any  time  be  disposed  of  at  less  than 
their  par  value,  without  the  consent  of  the  Board  of  Public 
Works ;  that  the  company  should  be  prohibited  from  making 
any  new  issues  or  reissues  of  script  or  postnotes.1 

This  act,  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  com- 
pany, was  followed  the  ensuing  year  by  the  act  of  March 

24,  1843,  which,  in  the  sixth  section,  provided, 

That  if  the  said  company  shall  make  default  in  payment  of 
any  money  now  advanced,  or  hereafter  advanced  for  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  on  the  guaranteed  debt  of  the  company  by 
the  commonwealth,  or  any  instalment  of  the  annuity  to  the  old 
James  River  Company  now  in  arrear,  or  which  may  hereafter4 

1  Fa.  Acts,  1841-42,  pp.  74-75;  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.,  p.  701. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [382 

become  in  arrear,  when  payment  thereof  shall  be  required  by 
the  General  Assembly,  or  by  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  the  Board  of  Public  Works  to  recover  the 
sum  or  sums  so  due,  with  lawful  interest  thereon,  by  motion 
in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth,  on  ten  days'  notice,  in  any 
court  having  jurisdiction  of  motions  in  behalf  of  the  common- 
wealth, against  public  defaulters.1 

This  act,  in  conjunction  with  the  act  of  March  25,  1842, 
went  a  long  way  toward  ruining  the  credit  of  the  company 
and  toward  rendering  it  dependent  almost  entirely  upon  the 
Legislature.2 

The  whole  property  and  income  of  the  company  being> 
thus  encumbered  for  the  indemnity  of  the  state,  the  ability 
of  the  company  to  borrow  money  from  any  other  quarter 
than  the  state  was  effectually  destroyed.3  A  further  conse- 
quence of  the  act  of  1842  was  to  prohibit  the  company  from 
proceeding  further  with  its  works  for  the  time,  with  the 
result  that  the  sum  of  $482,428.57,  which  had  been  pre- 
viously expended  between  Lynchburg  and  the  mouth  of 
North  river,  was  for  years  lost  to  the  company,  while  the 
interest  upon  it  remained  a  charge  upon  its  income.*  The 
company  never  fully  recovered  from  the  difficulties  grow- 
ing out  of  this  act,  intensified  as  it  was  by  the  act  of  March 
24,  1843. 

Meanwhile  such  works  as  the  company  had  received  in 
the  transfer  of  the  James  River  Company's  improvements 
proved  in  large  part  defective  and  some  of  them  had  to  be 
practically  reconstructed,  which  was  an  unexpected  draft  on 
the  company's  resources.  Added  to  this,  was  the  increas- 
ing cost  of  constructing  the  new  works,  which  far  exceeded 

1  Va.  Acts,  1842-43,  p.  68. 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  742. 
1  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1853-54,  doc.  no.  62,  p.  26. 
*  Ibid. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         143 

all  estimates.  The  old  canal  from  Richmond  to  Maiden's 
Adventure  proved  to  be  entirely  inadequate  and  the  com- 
pany had  to  reconstruct  it,  in  order  to  make  it  a  constituent 
part  of  the  new  canal  to  Lynchburg,  at  an  expense  almost 
equal  to  the  cost  of  an  entirely  new  work.  Thus  the  $640,- 
ooo  at  which  the  old  canal  had  been  valued  at  the  time  of 
the  transfer  was  nearly  all  lost  to  the  company.  Similarly, 
that  part  of  the  old  works  known  as  the  Blue  Ridge 
Canal  had  to  be  rebuilt,  as  it  could  accommodate  boats  only 
ten  feet  in  width  and  was  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the 
new  improvement.  Consequently  the  company  was  re- 
quired to  build  a  canal  from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg  which 
was  practically  new  throughout.1  Having  thus  secured 
slight  benefit  from  these  two  works,  which  had  cost  the 
state  a  million  dollars,  the  capital  of  the  company,  though 
nominally  $5,000,000,  was  really  only  about  $4,000,000 
with  which  to  carry  on  its  great  enterprise.  This  capital 
was  nearly  exhausted  by  the  time  the  canal  was  completed  to 
Lynchburg,  and  when  the  company  sought  to  increase  its 
capital,  with  the  state  contributing  its  pro  rata  share,  the 
Legislature  refused  to  concur,  and  all  manner  of  trouble 
ensued,  as  we  have  seen.2 

Despite  the  financial  embarrassments  to  which  the  com- 
pany had  been  subjected  since  1839,  however,  it  had  not  been 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  25-26 ;  also  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  &  K.  Co., 
p.  748. 

2  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1853-54,  doc.  no.  62,  pp.  25-26.    "  The  original  capital 
of  the  company  was  $5,000,000,  of  which  the  state  paid  $1,000,000  in  old! 
works,  and  of  the  private   subscription  there  proved  to  be  insolvent 
$73.336,   leaving  $3,926,664   as   the  actual   available  cash   capital.     All 
beyond  the  capital  thus  realized,  has  been  money  either  borrowed  directly 
from  the  state  treasury  or  on  bonds  guaranteed  by  the  state,  on  which 
the  company  has  been  required  to  pay  interest  from  the  day  it  was 
received,  before  it  was  expended,  and  of  course  long  before  it  began  to 
yield  any  return/'    Central  Water  Line  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Vir- 
ginia Capes,  p.  54. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [384 

idle.  As  has  been  noted,  the  canal  was  completed  as  far 
as  Lynchburg  in  1840  and  had  been  duly  opened  to  traffic. 
Throughout  1840,  progress  was  being  made  on  the  second 
grand  division  of  the  canal  from  Lynchburg  to  Buchanan, 
a  distance  of  fifty  miles.  By  July  of  that  year  all  the  work 
.in  this  division  had  been  contracted  for  and  was  going  for- 
ward energetically.1  This  action  excited  much  unfavorable 
comment,  but  was  justified  by  the  company  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  required  by  considerations  of  public  and  private 
faith  to  the  people  of  the  western  part  of  the  state,  as  well  as 
by  fiscal  reasons,  that  the  western  section  of  the  canal  be  com- 
pleted with  all  possible  dispatch.2  Early  in  the  spring  of 
1841  the  Blue  Ridge  canal  began  to  be  enlarged  by  the  cotn-| 
pany.  Traffic  was  conducted  at  that  point  on  the  bed  of 
the  river  while  the  improvement  was  in  progress.  The 
water  was  drawn  off  from  that  portion  of  the  canal  in 
February  and  March  in  order  to  render  possible  the  en- 
largement of  the  trunk  of  the  canal.8  This  constituted 
one  of  the  most  expensive  parts  of  the  new  works  above 
Lynchburg.  Much  work  was  done  on  the  second  division 
in  1841  in  the  completion  of  locks,  dams,  bridges,  and  cul- 
verts, and  in  the  breaking  of  ground  for  the  canal,  at  a  cost 
of  $268,929.  A  mixed  system  of  navigation,  with  extensive 
use  of  slack  water  on  this  division  reduced  the  cost  of  the 
improvement  per  mile  'below  that  on  the  first  division  from 
Richmond  to  Lynchburg.*  Following  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  March  25,  1842,  work  on  the  second  division  of  the 
canal  above  Lynchburg  was  suspended,  but  not  before  the) 
company  had  expended  $353,685.90  on  this  portion  of  the 
line.  In  consequence  of  the  suspension  of  operations,  these 

1  Sixth  Annual  Report  7.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  669. 
1  House  Journal,  1844-45,  doc.  no.  55,  p.  6. 
1  Sevtnth  Annual  Report  /.  /?.  <$•  K.  Co.,  pp.  6,  17. 
4/frtd.,  pp.  18-20. 


385]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL 

works  remained  for  some  years  in  an  unfinished  and  de- 
clining condition,  though  they  might  have  been  completed  at 
an  estimated  cost  of  about  $375, ooo.1 

The  charter  of  the  company  required  that  "  the  canal  at 
its  lower  termination  shall  be  connected  with  tidewater,  so 
as  to  enable  the  boats  which  usually  navigate  it  with  their 
cargoes  at  all  times  conveniently  to  pass  into  tidewater,  and 
descend  the  river  or  return."  2  In  meeting  this  require- 
ment it  appeared  that  no  other  plan  was  so  feasible  as  the 
purchase  of  the  Richmond  Dock.  When  it  seemed  pro- 
bable, in  Feb.  1841,  that  the  dock,  which  had  fallen  into  a 
dilapidated  condition,  would  be  sold  under  decree  of  court, 
the  directors  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  petitioned  the  Legislature 
for  permission  to  purchase  it;  and  a  bill  to  that  effect  was 
passed  unanimously  by  the  Assembly  on  March  20,  1841. 
The  company  accordingly  bought  the  property,  which  was 
sold  at  public  auction  in  Richmond  July  9,  1841.  The  pur- 
chase price  was  $100,000,  for  which  the  company  gave  its 
bonds,  extending  over  a  period  of  four  years.3  The  dock 

1  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  127-129.  There  had  been 
expended  on  this  division  for  construction  of  the  canal,  $256,525.23;  for 
construction  of  locks,  $87,617.95;  for  bridges,  $2,816.69;  for  dams, 
$5,316.92;  for  culverts,  $1408.98.  Ibid. 

*  Act  of  incorporation,  sec.  xxiii. 

1  Seventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  16;  Va.  Acts,  1840-41,  p. 
95.  "  This  dock  originally  extended  along  the  north  bank  of  the  river 
from  26th  St.  up  to  Mayo's  Bridge,  on  the  line  of  I4th  St.,  being  a  dis- 
tance of  3,750  ft.  The  original  design  contemplated  a  depth  of  n^  ft 
from  the  outlet  lock  at  26th  St.,  up  to  Shockoe  Creek,  and  of  10^  ft. 
from  the  creek  up  to  Mayo's  bridge,  but  this  depth  was  speedily  lessened 
by  the  deposit  brought  in  by  the  waters  of  the  creek.  The  whole  dock, 
being  projected  on  a  low  level,  with  embankments  raised  only  to  ordi- 
nary height  above  its  water  surface,  was  exposed  to  the  landwash,  from 
the  rising  ground  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  to  the  direct  access 
of  the  river,  upon  the  occurrence  of  every  extraordinary  flood.  In  con- 
sequence of  the  unfavorable  features  of  the  original  plan  and  construc- 
tion of  the  work  .  .  .  had  fallen  into  a  ruinous  and  dilapidated  condi- 
tion." Eighth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  117. 


I46     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [386 

proved  to  be  one  of  the  best  investments  in  the  history  of 
the  company.  In  order  to  repair  and  enlarge  it,  the  com- 
pany expended  within  the  first  two  years  after  its  purchase 
the  sum  of  $112,132.  It  was  put  into  operation  early  in 
1843,  having  been  opened  in  January  for  vessels  of  the 
smaller  tonnage,  and  in  April  for  those  of  the  larger  class. 
The  amount  of  tolls  on  the  dock  from  April  i  to  Nov.  ir 
1843,  was  $7,740.49.1 

In  July,  1842,  occurred  the  greatest  freshet  on  the  James 
River  since  1795.  Between  Richmond  and  Lynchburg  the 
river  was  out  of  its  banks  for  a  distance  of  twenty-four 
miles,  and  the  embankments  of  the  canal  were  broken  in 
103  places  in  this  division.  The  works  of  the  company 
suffered  great  damage,  which  it  required  the  services  of  four 
hundred  men  to  repair.  The  financial  loss  involved  was 
$42,000;  and  inasmuch  as  uninterrupted  navigation  on  the 
line  was  not  restored  until  Oct.  2,  1842,  a  large  additional 
loss  was  incurred  by  reason  of  diminished  tolls.  The  tolls 
received  during  the  year  ending  Dec.  i,  1842,  amounted 
to  $109,228.69,  which  was  less  than  that  of  the  previous 
year  by  $12,522.60,  whereas  under  normal  conditions  the 
tolls  should  have  shown  an  increase.  On  the  first  division 
of  the  canal  there  were  at  this  time  58  locks,  1 1  aqueducts, 
191  culverts,  and  133  farm  and  road  bridges,  and  with  these 
the  freshet  played  havoc  on  a  part  of  the  line.2 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  embarrassments  ex- 
perienced by  the  company  growing  out  of  the  hypotheca- 
tion of  its  bonds  by  General  Hamilton  and  to  the  hostile 
attitude  assumed  by  the  Legislature,  culminating  in  the  act 
of  March  25,  1842.  Following  the  passage  of  this  act  the 
company  continued  to  be  the  target  for  much  adverse  com- 

1  Ninth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  396. 

*  Eighth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  122,  127.    At  Beaver  Creek 
the  water  rose  30  ft.  above  the  level  of  the  low-water  mark.    Ibid. 


387]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL 

ment  and  some  unfavorable  legislation.  On  Jan.  3,  1843, 
the  House  of  Delegates  appointed  a  special  committee  of 
five,  subsequently  enlarged  to  eight, 

To  investigate  the  condition  and  affairs  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co., 
and  particularly  the  proceedings  and  conduct  of  the  present 
officers  of  the  said  company  in  the  management  thereof  .... 
and  that  said  committee  be  instructed  to  report  at  as  early 
day  as  practicable  the  result  of  their  investigation  and  inquiry ; 
and  upon  ....  all  other  such  matters  and  things  pertaining 
to  the  said  company,  and  the  management  thereof,  as  they 
may  deem  required  by  the  interests  of  this  commonwealth.1 

The  Senate  having  appointed  a  similar  committee  about 
the  same  time,  the  two  committees  decided  to  pursue  the  in- 
vestigation jointly,  and  to  render  identical  reports  to  the  two 
houses.2  The  committees  made  a  thorough-going  inves- 
tigation into  the  affairs  of  the  company,  and  on  March  25, 
1843,  rendered  an  elaborate  report  to  the  Legislature. 
They  found  that  the  company  had  adhered  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  charter  as  regards  the  plan  and  dimensions  of 
the  canal;  that  the  purchase  of  the  Richmond  dock  was  a 
suitable  connection  with  tidewater  and  a  judicious  invest- 
ment of  capital;  and  that  the  location  of  the  canal  was 
"  liable  to  no  just  objection."  With  reference  to  the  new 
works  of  the  company,  they  reported  that  these  had  been 
executed  in  "  a  skilful,  faithful  and  workmanlike  style." 
They  found  the  regulations  adopted  for  the  navigation  of 
the  canal  "  a  judicious  and  well-considered  system  ".  They 
reported  the  cost  of  the  first  divison  of  the  canal,  from 
Lynchburg  to  the  foot  of  the  basin  at  Richmond,  146.6 
miles,  as  being  $5,006,453.29,  or  about  $34,150  per  mile;  8 
and  added : 

1  House  Journal,  1842-43,  pp.  57,  93,  100,  252. 

*Ibid.,  p.  252. 

8  House  Journal,  1842-43,  pp.  252-254. 


I48     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [388 

The  committee  have  found  nothing  to  warrant  the  belief  that 
the  president  and  directors  have  been  wanting  in  economy, 
either  in  the  construction  or  conduct  of  the  work.  On  the 
contrary,  their  care  in  regard  to  assessments,  etc,  .  .  .  fur- 
nishes such  evidence  of  zeal,  judgment  and  attention  to  de- 
tails, as  justifies  the  conclusion  that  the  cost  of  the  work  was 
as  low  as  was  consistent  with  the  plan.  .  .  .  The  J.  R.  &  K. 
Canal  has  been  constructed  at  a  less  rate  per  mile  than  either 
of  the  two  great  lines  to  the  north  of  us,  rivals  for  the  same 
western  trade,  due  allowance  being  made  for  differences  of 
prevailing  prices.  The  excess  cost  of  those  lines  per  mile, 
over  the  cost  of  this  is  as  follows:  Of  the  main  line  of  the 
Pa.  canal,  $11,584;  and  of  the  C.  &  O.  canal,  $2i,255«1 

The  only  point  on  which  the  committee  found  fault  with 
the  company  was  to  question  the  expediency  of  commenc- 
ing work  on  the  second  division,  above  Lynchburg,  before 
the  canal  had  been  completed  on  the  first  division.2  The  re- 
port of  the  committee,  therefore,  was  a  vindication  of  the 
company  as  regards  both  its  officers  and  its  works. 

On  Feb.  16,  1843,  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  House 
of  Delegates  from  certain  citizens  of  Kanawha  county, 
making  complaint  as  to  the  condition  of  the  improvements 
on,  the  Kanawha  river  and  as  to  the  tolls  charged  for  traffic 
on  the  river.3  To  this  memorial  the  company  filed  a  remon- 
strance setting  forth  that  8,370,000  bushels  of  salt,  liable  to 
tolls,  had  been  shipped  down  the  Kanawha  within  the 
preceding  five  years;  and  that  only  4,144,563  of  this  had 
been  manifested,  the  residue  of  4,225,964  having  been  ship- 
ped without  being  manifested,  in  violation  of  the  rights  of 
the  company  and  by  evading  its  officers.  The  company 
claimed  that  as  a  result  of  this  evasion  it  had  been  defrauded 

1  Ibid.,  p.  254. 

*  House  Journal,  1842-4$  p.  255. 

*Ibid.,  p.  141. 


389]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL 

of  the  sum  of  $21,129.  The  remonstrance  admitted  that 
the  improvement  of  the  Kanawha  was  not  the  best  possible, 
but  claimed  that  it  was  sufficient  to  justify  the  moderate 
tolls  received;  and  that,  with  the  road,  it  had  contributed 
powerfully  to  the  development  of  the  Kanawha  valley. 
It  called  attention,  also,  to  the  fact  that  since  the  improve- 
ment had  been  in  operation  the  quantity  of  salt  manufac- 
tured in  Kanawha  county  had  increased  from  400,000 
bushels  to  2,000,000  bushels  annually.1 

In  response  to  a  petition  of  the  company  asking  for  such 
modification  of  the  charter  as  would  enable  them  to  increase 
the  tolls  on  their  line  of  improvement  on  James  river,  the 
General  Assembly  passed  the  act  of  March  24,  1843,  pro- 
viding for  a  new  tariff  of  tolls  "  not  exceeding  an  average 
of  three  and  a  half  cents  per  ton  of  2000  pounds  per  mile."  2 

The  Legislature  of  1842-43  was  seized  with  one  of  its 
periodical  fits  of  retrenchment  in  expenditures.  It  ap- 
pointed a  joint  committee  on  retrenchment,  which  reported, 
in  part,  as  follows: 

The  expenses  on  works  of  internal  improvement  have  been 
enormously  high.  The  salaries  of  some  of  the  officers  have 
been  outrageously  extravagant.  ...  It  appears  that  the  ex- 
penses incurred  in  the  payment  of  the  agents  of  the  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.  from  its  organization  to  Dec.  I,  1842,  amounted  to 

1  Eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  371-374.  In  1828  an  act 
was  passed  which  for  the  first  time  authorized  tolls  to  be  taken  on  the 
Kanawha  river.  This  act  fixed  the  toll  on  salt,  the  chief  article  of 
export  in  that  region  at  the  time,  at  one  cent  per  bushel.  In  1829  the 
toll  was  fixed  by  the  Legislature  at  one-half  cent  per  bushel.  Ibid.,  p. 
373- 

a  Va.  Acts,  1842-43,  p.  68.  This  act  also  provided  that  the  number  of 
directors  of  the  company  should  be  five ;  and  that  the  fiscal  year  should 
end  regularly  thereafter  on  Oct.  31.  The  Legislature  at  this  session 
passed  the  act  of  Jan.  21,  1843,  providing  for  the  advance  by  the  state 
of  the  interest  and  dividend  debt  due  from  the  company  Jan.  I,  1843, 
and  appropriating  $41,280  for  these  purposes.  Ibid.,  p.  19. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [390 

$432,689.07.  Few,  if  any,  other  works  are  more  economically 
managed.  There  must  be  a  reduction  of  salaries  of  officers 
on  these  works  of  internal  improvement. 

The  Legislature,  mindful  of  this  report,  passed  a  resolu- 
tion March  27,  1843,  directing  the  proxies  of  the  common- 
wealth to  move  and  vote  for  a  reduction  in  the  salaries  of 
the  president  and  secretary  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.2  The 
stockholders,  however,  declined  to  reduce  the  salaries  of 
these  officers. 

In  his  sessional  message  to  the  Legislature,  Dec.  4,  1843, 
Governor  James  McDowell  dwelt  at  length  on  the  affairs 
of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  After  reviewing  the  history  of  the 
improvement,  he  stated  that  the  company  was  in  no  condi- 
tion to  go  forward  with  its  undertaking,  being  encumbered 
with  a  six  per  cent,  debt  on  $1,500,000,  and  its  revenues 
being  barely  sufficient  to  meet  its  current  expenses ;  and  that 
it  was  so  situated  as  to  have  no  means  of  replenishing  its 
funds  except  by  augmenting  its  capital,  or  by  borrowing. 
He  declared  that  unless  the  state  came  to  the  aid  of  the 
company  promptly  it  would  not  only  be  unable  to  prosecute 
its  work  to  completion  but  would  lose  what  it  had  expended 
'beyond  Lynchburg.  His  recommendation  was  that  the 
Legislature  should  come  generously  to  the  assistance  of 
the  company.3  .^ 

On  Jan.  16,  1844,  the  company  presented  a  memorial  to 
the  General  Assembly  asking  for  $536,000  "  to  be  applied 
to  the  completion  of  the  company's  unfinished  works  be- 
tween Lynchburg  and  the  mouth  of  North  river;  and  to  the 
construction  of  the  connection  required  by  law  between  the 
canal  and  the  Rivanna  river;  and  the  contemplated  connec- 

1  House  Journal,  1842-43,  doc.  no.  46,  p.  3. 

*  Va.  Acts,  1842-43,  p.  117. 

3  House  Journal,  1843-44,  PP-  12-14. 


39I]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         151 

tions  between  the  canal  and  the  south  side  of  James  river."  * 
They  further  asked  the  privilege  of  paying  in  instalments 
the  loan  of  $87,822  "  to  meet  their  interest  and  dividend 
debt  due  in  January  and  July  of  last  year  ".2  The  Legisla- 
ture declined  to  grant  the  $536,000  requested  by  the  com- 
pany, but  on  Feb.  13,  1844,  passed  a  bill  providing  that  the 
company  might  pay  the  $87,822,  which  had  been  advanced 
by  the  state  previously,  in  instalments  running  over  a  period 
of  three  years.3 

On  Dec.  6,  1843,  the  House  of  Delegates  by  resolution 
called  upon  the  second  auditor  for  a  statement  showing  the 
capital  appropriated  to  and  expended  by  the  James  River 
Company  and  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company 
from  the  commencement  of  the  enterprise  to  date.  In  com- 
pliance with  this  request  the  second  auditor,  J.  R.  Brown, 
Jr.,  rendered  a  statement  Dec.  23,  1843,  showing  the  total 
sum  subscribed  to  the  capital  stock  by  individuals,  by  cor- 
porations and  by  the  state,  to  have  been  $5,467,000.  He 
showed  further,  that  the  state  had  aided  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co., 
by  loans,  by  advances  of  money,  and  by  guaranteeing  the 
bonds  of  the  company,  to  the  amount  of  $1,926,617.25; 
and  that  the  total  amount  expended  on  the  improvement 
from  the  beginning  was  $7,153,370.79.* 

In  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature,  Dec.  2,  1844, 
Governor  McDowell  referred  to  the  James  River  &  Kan- 
awha Company,  as  follows : 

This  work  has  been  regarded,  and  justly  so,  for  more  than 
half  a  century  as  the  principal  one  in  the  state  and  hence  it 
has  been  aided  again  and  again  by  successive  legislatures  with 
peculiar  and  great  liberality.  Not  only  is  the  state  a  sub- 

1  Ninth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  461. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  462. 

8  Fa.  Acts,  1843-44,  p.  68. 

4  House  Journal,  1843-44,  doc.  no.  14,  pp.  3-4. 


I52     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [392 

scriber  for  three-fifths  the  capital  stock  ....  but  she  has 
advanced  it  large  sums  out  of  her  own  funds  and  has  guaran- 
teed the  punctual  payment  of  still  larger  advances  which  have 
been  made  to  it  by  others.  The  actual  condition  of  the  work 
and  of  the  company  undertaking  it  is  therefore  a  subject  of 
habitual  interest  to  the  Legislature  and  to  the  public.  .  .  .1 

The  governor  then  stated  that  the  company  was  without 
means  to  complete  the  unfinished  part  of  its  works.  He 
suggested  several  possible  plans  that  might  be  pursued: 
either  that  the  state  buy  out  the  other  stockholders  and 
complete  the  work  itself ;  or  that  the  state  should  divide  the 
line  of  improvement  with  the  company;  or  that  the  state 
should  advance  such  funds  to  the  company  as  would  enable 
it  to  finish  either  some  particular  part  of  the  work,  or  the 
whole  of  it.  He  recommended  the  second  alternative,  but 
if  this  was  deemed  inadvisable,  that  the  state  should  loan 
the  company  "  such  sum  as  shall  be  sufficient  to  save  it  from 
ruin,  and  render  available  in  some  way  its  disjointed  works 
between  Lynchburg  and  the  mouth  of  North  river."  2 

On  August  14  and  15,  1844,  an  internal  improvement 
convention,  representing  fifteen  of  the  western  counties  and 
the  city  of  Richmond,  was  held  at  Lewisburg,  Virginia. 
Its  deliberations  were  embodied  in  a  memorial  which  was 
presented  to  the  Legislature  Dec.  3,  1844,  and  urged  the 
expediency  of  liberal  state  aid  to  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to 
enable  it  to  complete  the  line  of  improvements  to  the  Ohio 
river.3 

To  the  recommendations  of  Governor  McDowell,  the 
appeals  of  the  company,  and  the  memorial  of  the  Lewisburg 
Convention,  in  behalf  of  the  company,  the  Legislature 

1  House  Journal,  1844-45,  P-  IO- 
8  House  Journal,  1844-45,  pp.  10-11. 

8  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  House  Journal,  1844-45,  doc.  no.  7, 
pp.  1-6;  also  House  Journal,  1844-45,  p.  16. 


393]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         153 

turned  a  deaf  ear.  The  enterprise  had  incurred  the  hos- 
tility of  rival  sections  and  interests,  and  was  unable  to 
muster  sufficient  support  to  enable  it  to  go  forward  with 
the  work  of  construction.  Meanwhile  there  was  much  cri- 
ticism of  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  company 
as  conducted  by  the  existing  president  and  directors,  not- 
withstanding the  favorable  report  of  the  legislative  com- 
mittee of  investigation.  Feeling  that  this  criticism  was 
unjust,  the  president  and  directors  of  the  company  demanded 
a  re-investigation  of  its  affairs,  from  its  organization  to 
date,  by  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses  of  the  as- 
sembly. Cabell,  who  had  'been  an  especial  target  for  cri- 
ticism, demanded  a  thorough-going  investigation  of  his  own 
administrative  acts  and  of  the  dissatisfaction  directed 
against  himself  in  particular.1 

In  compliance  with  the  foregoing  request  the  Legislature 
appointed  a  joint  committee  to  investigate  the  affairs  of  the 
company.  After  a  painstaking  investigation  the  committee 
brought  in  a  unanimous  report  which  was  a  complete  vindi- 
cation of  the  officers  of  the  company  and  an  endorsement  of 
their  management  of  the  enterprise.2  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  up  to  this  time  the  management  of  the  project  had 
been  scrupulously  free  from  any  taint  of  corruption.  The 
company  had  come  unscathed  through  two  searching  legisla- 
tive investigations,  during  the  course  of  which  its  enemies 
had  made  a  bitter  and  determined  assault  upon  it.  The  re- 
sult showed  the  high  character  and  ability  of  the  men  who 
were  in  charge  of  its  affairs,  and  incidentally  revealed  how' 
strongly  the  general  scheme  of  the  work  was  intrenched  in 
the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly.  The 
sentimental  background  of  the  project  as  a  great  state  enter- 

1  House  Journal,  1844-45,  PP-  80-81. 

*  Report  of  the  Committee,  House  Journal,  1844-45,  doc.  no.  55,  pp. 


i-n. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [394 

prise,  founded  by  Washington  and  fostered  by  Marshall, 
coupled  with  the  hope  that  it  was  destined  to  be  a  grand 
central  highway  of  traffic  between  the  east  and  the  west, 
never  failed  to  rally  to  its  support  those  of  the  legislators 
who  were  too  broad-gauged  to  be  influenced  by  petty  sec- 
tional prejudices.  The  fact  that  the  state  itself  was  the 
heaviest  stockholder  in  the  enterprise  also  stood  the  com- 
pany in  good  stead  in  all  the  varied  embarrassments  en- 
countered in  its  chequered  career.  The  people  might  com- 
plain, as  was  their  privilege,  and  members  of  the  Assembly 
from  districts  not  benefited  by  the  improvement  might  op- 
pose it  with  voice  and  vote,  and  for  the  time  successfully, 
but  its  friends  were  always  able  to  rally  a  strong  party  to  its 
support  as  long  as  it  had  the  slightest  chance  to  accomplish 
its  original  purpose. 

Cabell's  management  of  the  enterprise  had  been  singu- 
gularly  able  and  blameless,  but  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case  he  had  become  the  target  for  criticism,  a  favorite  object 
of  attack  for  the  foes  of  the  project.  He  had  stood  con- 
sistently for  an  all-water  route  over  the  mountains  to  the 
west,  and  the  majority  of  people  in  Virginia  had  approved 
his  plan.  Many  thinking  men,  however,  had  begun  to  in- 
quire as  to  the  expediency  of  continuing  the  canal,  now  that 
railroads  were  proving  their  practicability.  Cabell  was 
now  under  fire  both  as  regards  his  management  of  the 
company  and  his  plan  for  future  work. 

At  their  annual  meeting  in  Dec.,  1845,  the  stockholders 
of  the  company  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that  "  the 
connection  between  James  river  and  Ohio  should  be  by  a 
continuous  railroad  "-1  Despite  his  opposition  to  this 
policy,  Cabell  was  unanimously  re-elected  president  of  the 
company  at  an  adjourned  meeting  held  Feb.  3,  1846. 2  He 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  614. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  618. 


395]       THE  JAMES  RWER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         155 

declined  to  accept  re-election,  however,  and  on  Feb.  10, 
1846,  tendered  his  resignation  as  president.  This  resigna- 
tion was  accepted  at  an  adjourned  meeting  of  stockholders 
held  March  4,  1846,  and  Walter  Gwynn  was  elected  as  his 
successor.1 

Cabell's  retirement  was  of  temporary  advantage  to  the 
company  as  removing  for  the  moment  the  customary  object 
of  attack  by  its  foes,  and  before  these  could  refill  their 
quivers  for  further  onslaught  the  friends  of  the  project 
rallied  to  its  support  and  secured  favorable  legislation  from 
the  Assembly.2 

It  had  become  obvious  that  unless  the  state  came  strongly 
to  the  aid  of  the  company  it  would  soon  become  insolvent, 
its  charter  would  be  forfeited,  and  all  hope  of  the  comple- 
tion of  the  work  would  vanish.  It  was  still  the  most  im- 
portant corporation  in  the  commonwealth  and  was  backed 
by  powerful  influences ;  but  its  financial  difficulties,  together 
with  sectional  prejudices  and  a  growing  conviction  as  to  the 
superiority  of  railroads,  had  forged  a  weapon  with  which 
its  enemies  might  assail  it.  Dependent  upon  the  legislature 
for  funds  with  which  to  complete  its  works  and  often  for 
means  to  meet  its  current  expenses,  it  was  ever  appealing 
for  aid  and  its  affairs  were  constantly  before  the  public  for 
attack  and  defense.  The  state,  being  a  majority  stockholder 
in  the  company  and  the  guarantor  of  its  bonds,  besides  being 

1  Ibid.,  p.  625.  The  stockholders,  in  accepting  CabeH's  resignation, 
expressed  their  appreciation  of  his  character  and  services  in  very  hand- 
some terms.  Ibid. 

1  The  main  objections  urged  against  the  company  had  been :  that  the 
plan  of  a  continuous  water  line  was  liable  to  insurmountable  physical 
difficulties;  that  the  water  line,  if  executed,  could  not  compete  with 
rival  lines  for  the  trade  of  the  Ohio  valley;  that  the  capital  invested 
would  be  unprofitable;  and  that  the  existing  joint  stock  company  was  a 
failure.  See  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  625-740, 
Passim. 


!^6     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [396 

under  moral  obligation  to  support  it  because  of  its  past  re- 
lations to  the  project,  would  come  tardily  to  its  rescue  when- 
ever its  very  life  was  at  stake,  but  this  was  always  over 
the  protest  of  a  formidable  opposition  and  apparently  more 
from  a  sense  of  noblesse  oblige  than  from  a  conviction  of 
the  utility  of  the  enterprise. 

During  the  session  of  1846-47  the  legislature  passed  im- 
portant measures  relating  to  the  company,  thereby  insuring 
it  a  new  lease  on  life  and  providing  for  its  enlarged  activity, 
to  the  gratification  of  its  friends  and  the  discomfiture  of  its 
foes.  On  December  8,  1846,  the  company  presented  a 
memorial  to  the  Legislature  setting  forth  the  condition  of 
its  affairs  and  praying  for  aid.1  This  petition  was  met  by 
the  General  Assembly  by  the  passage  of  two  acts  for  the  j 
relief  of  the  company.  The  act  of  Dec.  18,  1846,  pro- 
vided for  a  loan  of  $59,559  to  meet  the  interest  falling  due 
Jan.  i,  i847.2  Of  more  importance  was  the  act  of  March 
i,  1847,  providing  for  the  completion  of  the  canal  to 
Buchanan.  The  time  for  completing  the  improvement  to 
Buchanan,  as  given  in  the  27th  section  of  the  act  of  incor- 
poration, was  extended  to  May  25,  1859.  The  treasurer  of 
the  state  was  directed  to  loan  the  company  certificates  of 
state  stock  to  the  amount  of  $1,236,000,  in  return  for  which 
the  company  was  to  execute  a  "  mortgage  or  other  specific 
lien  on  all  its  property,  real  and  personal,  and  upon  the  net 
income  of  all  its  tolls  and  receipts  ",  and  to  pay  semi-an- 
nual interest  on  the  loan.8 

By  the  act  of  March  20,  1847,  tne  Legislature  provided 
for  the  connection  of  the  canal  at  Richmond  with  the  tide- 
water of  James  river  through  the  Richmond  dock,  and 

1  House  Journal,  1846-47,  doc.  no.  6,  p.  i. 

1  Twelfth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  82. 

*  Va.  Acts,  1846-47,  pp.  80-82. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         157 

authorized  the  company  to  borrow  $350,000  to  complete 
this  improvement.1 

The  stockholders  of  the  company,  elated  at  the  prospect 
of  plentiful  funds  for  the  extension  of  the  canal  to  Buch- 
anan and  for  the  completion  of  the  tidewater  connection  at 
Richmond,  entered  with  zest  upon  the  prosecution  of  the 
work.  Gen.  Walter  Gwynn  was  made  chief  engineer  to 
superintend  the  new  improvements,  and  his  place  as  presi- 
dent was  supplied  by  the  election  of  Wm.  B.  Chittenden.2 
Work  on  the  line  from  Lynchburg  to  Buchanan  was  re- 
sumed in  July,  1847.  The  work  below  the  mouth  of  North 
River  was  prepared  for  contract  and  much  of  it  put  under 
contract  during  1847;  and  in  December  of  that  year  pre- 
parations were  made  to  contract  for  the  work  above  the 
mouth  of  North  River,  though  active  operations  did  not 
begin  on  this  part  of  the  line  until  i848.3  In  Nov.,  1851, 
the  canal  from  Lynchburg  to  Buchanan,  a  distance  of  fifty 
miles,  was  completed  and  opened  to  the  public.3  In  its 
construction  the  company  had  built  38  locks ;  4  stone  dams, 
and  7  timber  dams,  across  James  river;  48  square  drains, 
17  tow-path  gridges,  8  culverts,  2,  farm  bridges;  and  one 
street  bridge  over  the  basin  at  Lynchburg.  Its  cost  was 
$2,422,566,  or  $48,451  per  mile.4  There  was  now  through 
traffic  by  the  canal  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan,  a  distance 
of  196-^2  miles,  of  which  about  nine  miles  was  by  slack- 

1  Ibid,,  pp.  82-84. 

3  Twelfth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  155.  Gen.  Gwynn  was  a 
prominent  civil  engineer  of  Virginia  and  appears  to  have  been  ap- 
pointed to  the  office  of  president  of  the  company  because  personally 
popular  and  politically  influential,  but  not  with  the  expectation  of  hold- 
ing the  position  permanently.  He  served  as  president  a  little  over  a 
year,  and  was  then  appointed  to  the  more  congenial  post  of  chief  engi- 
neer of  the  company. 

8  Sixteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  9. 

*  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  671. 


I58     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [398 

water  navigation.  Repeated  attempts  were  made  to  extend 
the  canal  from  Buchanan  to  Covington  and  considerable 
money  was  expended  on  that  part  of  the  line;  but  such 
work  was  never  completed  and  Buchanan  remained  to  the 
end  the  terminus  of  the  line  in  its  finished  form.  The  cost 
of  constructing  the  canal  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan  was 
$8,259,184,  which  exceeded  the  cost  of  the  original  Erie 
Canal.1 

At  an  adjourned  meeting  of  stockholders  on  May  n, 
1849,  J°nn  Y.  Mason  was  elected  president  of  the  com- 
pany to  succeed  Chittenden,  who  had  died  a  short  time  be- 
fore.2 Mason  served  the  company  as  president  ably 
and  acceptably  until  October  26,  i853.3  He  was  one 
of  the  most  influential  men  in  Virginia  and  had  had  a  long 
and  distinguished  career  as  jurist  and  statesman,  and  re- 
signed the  presidency  of  the  company  to  become  minister  to  I 
France.  The  directors  chose  him  as  president  of  the  com- 
pany because  of  his  political  influence  and  his  conciliatory 
manners,  which  they  though  would  be  helpful  not  only  in 
securing  needed  legislation  but  would  tend  to  win  friends 
for  the  enterprise.  These  hopes  were  justified  by  Judge 
Mason  in  so  far  as  it  was  possible  for  any  one  to  justify 
them  in  the  existing  condition  of  affairs,  and  it  was  with 
regret  that  the  company  accepted  his  resignation.4 

1  Central  Water  Line  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Virginia  Capes,  p. 
54.    The  cost  of  the  original  Erie  Canal  was  estimated  by  the  engineers 
at  $4,926,738,  but  its  actual  cost  was  $7,143,789.    Its  width  at  the  surface 
was  40  ft.,  at  bottom  28  ft.,  its  depth  4  ft.    It  was  begun  July  4,  1817, 
and  completed  October  26,  1825.    See  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Inland 
Waterways  Commission,  1908,  p.  211. 

2  Fourteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.   Co.,  p.  104;  also  Docs.  H. 
of  D.,  1853-54,  doc.  no.  62,  pp.  15-16. 

*  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  546. 

*  Eighteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  510;  also  Nineteenth 
Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  544.     John  Y.   Mason  began  his  career  as  a 


399]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  CANAL         159 

The  company  having  been  unable  to  borrow  the  money 
authorized  by  the  act  of  March  20,  1847,  for  the  completion 
of  the  Richmond  dock  and  for  effecting  the  connection  with 
tidewater  contemplated  by  that  act,  this  important  work 
had  been  neglected.  A  movement  was  now  begun  to  push 
this  matter  more  vigorously.  The  company  presented  to 
the  legislature  a  memorial,  accompanied  by  petitions  from 
the  citizens  of  Richmond  and  Lynchburg,  praying  aid  in 
making  the  tidewater  connection.1  These  memorials  re- 
sulted in  the  act  of  March  9,  1849,  authorizing  the  treasurer 
of  the  commonwealth  to  guarantee  the  bonds  of  the  com- 
pany to  the  amount  of  $350,000  for  this  work.2  Construc- 
tion of  the  work  began  promptly  and  was  pressed  vigor- 
ously. It  consisted  of  a  series  of  locks  and  basins  extend- 
ing from  the  main  basin  of  the  canal  to  the  upper  end  of 
the  dock,  and  a  ship  canal  connecting  the  dock  with  the  river 
at  Rockett's.3  As  the  work  progressed  it  proved  more 
costly  than  had  been  estimated  and  required  three  additional 
acts  of  assembly,  authorizing  further  loans  amounting  in 
the  aggregate  to  $240,000,  before  it  was  completed.  The 
total  cost  of  the  dock  and  tidewater  connection  was  $851,- 
312,  and  it  was  not  completed  until  1854;  but  it  was  a 

lawyer  in  Southampton  county,  Virginia.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
legislature  for  several  terms,  and  of  the  Va.  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1829-30,  and  a  Member  of  Congress,  1831-37.  Was  appointed  judge 
of  the  U.  S.  district  of  Va.  Served  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  under 
Tyler,  and  as  Attorney  General  and  Secretary  of  the  Navy  under  Polk. 
Was  president  of  the  Va.  Constitutional  Convention  of  1850.  Was  ap- 
pointed by  Pierce  minister  to  France  in  1853,  and  was  reappointed  by 
Buchanan  to  the  same  post.  He  died  in  Paris  Oct.  3,  1859.  See  The 
National  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography,  vol.  vi,  p.  7.  To  his 
fellow -Virginians  he  was  ordinarily  known  as  "  Judge  Mason  ". 

1  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1848-49,  doc.  no.  n,  pp.  1-4;  ibid.,  doc.  no.  46;  ibid., 
doc.  no.  29,  pp.  9-11. 

*  Sixteenth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  16. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  17;  also  Seventeenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  192. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [400 

very  substantial  work  and  proved  to  be  a  wise  and  profitable 
investment.1 

In  1851  the  company  very  unwisely  began  to  take  meas- 
ures for  the  completion  of  the  canal  above  Buchanan.  This 
was  to  >be  known  as  the  "  third  division  "  of  the  canal  and 
was  designed  to  connect  Buchanan  with  Covington,  a  dis- 
tance of  forty-seven  miles.  At  an  adjourned  meeting  of 
stockholders  held  March  26,  1852,  a  resolution  was  adopted 
petitioning  the  legislature  "  to  provide  the  means  necessary 
to  extend  the  canal  to  or  near  Covington  ....  and  to 
enable  the  company  to  construct  thence  a  railroad  to  the 
Ohio  river."  2  The  petition  was  rejected,  but  the  company 
proceeded  with  the  construction,  nevertheless,  and  by  Janu- 
ary i,  1853,  had  expended  $77,635,36  on  this  work.  The 
sum  expended  on  this  division  before  it  was  finally  aban- 
doned amounted  to  $638,058.58.  It  remained  to  the  end 
in  an  unfinished  condition  and  was  practically  a  dead  loss 
to  the  company.3 

Simultaneously  with  its  improvements  previously  men- 
tioned, the  company  had  been  extending  its  activities  in  the 
purchase  or  construction  of  several  minor  works  ancillary 
to  its  general  scheme  of  the  main  line  to  the  west.  The 
acts  of  Assembly  of  1839  and  1847  nad  imposed  the  obliga- 
tion on  the  company  of  connecting  the  Rivanna  Navigation 
Company's  improvement  with  the  canal  at  Columbia,  and  on 
Jan.  10,  1850,  an  agreement  between  the  two  companies 
was  made.1  The  tonnage  of  the  Rivanna  river  thus  en- 
tered the  canal  at  Columbia,  which  was  fifty-seven  miles 
above  Richmond.  To  effect  this  connection  the  company 
expended  $117,094.76,  and  while  it  added  to  the  tonnage 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  L  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  670. 
1  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  630. 
8  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  835. 
4  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  L  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  555. 


40i]       THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL         161 

on  the  main  line  this  was  not  commensurate  with  the  cost 
involved.1  This  improvement  was  know  as  the  "  Rivanna 
Connection." 

Another  series  of  works  of  the  company,  known  as  the 
"  South  Side  Connections  ",  consisted  of  several  bridges  to 
connect  the  main  line  of  the  canal  with  the  south  side  of 
James  river.  Bridges  were  built  across  the  James  at  New 
Canton,  Hardwicksville,  and  Bent  Creek.  The  company 
also  constructed  a  dam,  with  river  lock  and  lateral  canal,  at 
Cartersville.  These  works  were  constructed  in  1854-55, 
and  cost  the  company  $i  64,694. 52.2 

More  important  than  the  foregoing  subsidiary  works  was 
the  "  North  River  improvement  ".  The  North  River  Navi- 
gation Company  had,  between  1853  and  1857,  effected  im- 
provements on  North  River  from  Lexington  to  the  junc- 
tion of  that  river  with  the  James  at  a  point  one  hundred 
and  seventy- four  miles  above  Richmond,  at  a  cost  of  $425,- 
538.  The  distance  from  Lexington  to  the  mouth  of  North 
River  is  about  twenty  miles,  and  the  improvements  con- 
structed by  the  North  River  Navigation  Company  consisted 
of  ten  miles  of  canal  and  nearly  ten  miles  of  slack-water 
navigation.  In  1857  tn^s  company  proposed  to  sell  its 
works  to  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company.8  The 
proposal  was  received  favorably,  as  it  was  thought  that  the 
acquisition  of  these  works  would  add  a  desirable  feeder  to 
the  main  works  of  the  James  River  canal,  with  the  second 
division  of  which  it  was  connected  at  the  mouth  of  North 
River;  and  also  because  the  purchase  could  be  effected  at 
considerably  less  than  half  the  cost  of  the  work  to  the  North 
River  Navigation  Company.  Application  was  made  to  the 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  835. 

2  Ibid.;  also  Twentieth  Report,  ibid.,  p.  780. 

8  Twentieth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  665;  Twenty-third  Re- 
port, ibid.,  p.  339. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [402 

Legislature  for  permission  to  make  the  purchase,  and  this 
was  granted  by  act  of  March  16,  I858.1  The  transfer  was 
duly  made  and  cost  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company  z 
$200,000  and  the  sum  requisite  to  complete  it,  estimated  at 
about  $73,000.  It  was  not  fully  completed  until  1862,  and 
eventually  involved  an  expenditure  of  $536,551.  Its  pur- 
chase proved  of  doubtful  value  and  was  a  heavy  drain  on 
the  resources  of  the  company.8 

1  Fa.  Acts,  I8S7-58,  pp.  93-4- 

a  Twenty-third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p,  339. 

3  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  675. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY  AT  THE 
HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES 

(1850-1860) 

ATTENTION  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  James 
liver  and  Kanawha  Company  was  not  merely  a  canal  en- 
terprise, but  had  other  works  as  well.1  It  is  now  proposed, 
even  at  the  risk  of  tedious  detail,  to  give  a  somewhat  extended 
description  of  the  works  of  the  company  and  to  point  out  its 
value  as  an  agency  of  transportation,  its  cost  of  construc- 
tion and  maintenance,  its  traffic,  and  its  relative  importance 
in  the  scheme  of  Virginia's  internal  improvements  in  the 
ante-bellum  period.  It  is  further  proposed  to  pass  in  re- 
view the  effect  of  rival  enterprises  and  of  sectional  prejudi- 
ces on  its  fortunes.  Being  an  enterprise  toward  which  the 
state  occupied  the  position  of  stockholder,  surety  and  credi- 
tor, it  is  deemed  advisable  to  describe  somewhat  further 
the  development  of  public  sentiment  in  relation  to  its  sup- 
port and  progress. 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company's  line  of  im- 
provement extended  from  Richmond  to  Point  Pleasant  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Ohio,  a  distance  of  four  hundred  and 
eighty-five  miles.2  The  company  reached  the  height  of  its 
activities  in  the  decade  1850-1860,  and  in  that  period  its 

1  In  his  investigation  of  this  subject  the  author  has  been  struck  by 
the  misconceptions  existing  on  the  part  of  such  writers  as  have  made 
reference  to  this  enterprise.     It  seems  to  be  conceived  of  very  generally 
as  merely  a  canal  project  of  small  importance  and  is  ordinarily  dis- 
missed as  such  with  a  certain  unwarranted  contempt. 

2  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  7.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  669. 

403]  163 


!64     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [404 

works  embraced  the  Richmond  dock  and  tidewater  connec- 
tion, the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  the  Southside 
connections,  the  Rjivanna  connection,  the  North  River  im- 
provement, the  Kanawha  River  improvement,  the  Kanawha 
turnpike  road,  and  the  Blue  Ridge  turnpike  road. 

Beginning  at  Richmond,  our  attention  is  first  directed  to 
the  Richmond  dock  and  tidewater  connection,  which  was 
one  of  the  company's  most  substantial  works.  The  dock 
and  tidewater  connection  extended  for  one  mile  along  the 
north  side  of  James  river.  It  consisted  of  a  series  of  locks 
and  basins  extending  from  the  main  basin  of  the  canal  to 
the  upper  end  of  the  dock,  and  a  ship  canal  connecting  the 
dock  with  the  river  at  Rocketts.1  The  business  and 
revenue  of  the  dock  exceeded  that  of  any  other  portion 
of  the  company's  works  except  the  canal,  and  its  trade 

1  The  ship  lock,  built  of  granite,  was  185  feet  long  between  the  gates, 
35  feet  wide,  had  a  lift  of  15  feet,  and  would  pass  vessels  of  500  tons. 
The  dock  was  4,100  feet  long  from,  the  ship  lock  to  Seventeenth  Street 
and  had  a  continuous  wharf,  protected  by  a  granite  wall  for  its  whole 
length  on  the  north  side  and  for  about  1,000  feet  on  the  south  side.  Its 
depth  was  from  n  to  15  feet,  and  its  average  width  100  feet.  Above 
Seventeenth  Street  was  a  continuation  called  "the  upper  dock",  which 
was  also  of  granite  and  was  800  feet  long  and  200  feet  wide.  The  dock 
was  connected  with  the  basin  by  means  of  five  locks,  having  an 
aggregate  lift  of  96  feet.  The  cost  of  the  dock  and  tidewater 
connection  was  $851,312,  the  cost  of  the  dock  alone  having  been  $244,- 
721.98.  This  part  of  the  company's  works  was  completed  in  1854.  See 
Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  670,  672,  685.  The 
navigable  possibilities  of  the  James  below  Richmond  are  described  by 
President  Ellis  as  follows :  "  The  James  river  is  navigable  for  ships  of 
1,000  tons  burden,  drawing  17  feet,  from  its  mouth  to  City  Point,  36 
miles  below  Richmond.  From  City  Point,  vessels  drawing  15  ft.  water 
can  ascend  to  Warwick,  five  miles  below  Richmond.  From  Warwick 
to  Richmond  the  river  is  navigable  at  this  time  (1860)  for  vessels 
drawing  11^  ft.  water.  But  improvements  are  in  progress,  at  the  ex- 
pense and  under  the  supervision  of  the  city  of  Richmond,  by  which  the 
depth  will  be  increased  to  16  ft.,  from  Richmond  to  City  Point."  Ibid., 
p.  670.  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  the  successor  not 
only  to  the  James  River  Company,  but  to  the  Richmond  Dock  Company 
as  well. 


405]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  165 

increased  steadily  from  1853  to  1860.  In  1855  there 
were  1217  boats  and  vessels  entering  the  dock,  and 
1377  leaving;  in  1857  the  number  entering  was  1852, 
and  those  leaving  1891 ;  in  1860  the  number  had  risen  to 
2123  incoming  vessels  and  2337  outgoing  craft.  In  1855 
sixty  New  York  packets,  forty  Baltimore  packets,  and 
twenty-nine  Boston  packets  entered  the  dock  with  assorted 
cargoes.  In  1860,  the  number  had  increased  to  fifty-six1 
fron^.  New  York,  seventy-five  from  Baltimore,  and  thirty- 
nine  form  Boston.1  The  principal  articles  of  trade  un- 
loaded at  the  dock  were  the  heavy,  bulky  staples  in  whose 
first  cost  transportation  is  so  large  a  factor,  and  the  bare 
statistical  details  will  give  a  truer  notion  of  their  character 
than  any  generalization.  In  1860  incoming  vessels  unloaded 
29,897  tons  of  coal,  25,470  barrels  of  fish,  22,778  tons  of 
guano,  29,813  bales  of  hay,  13,333  tons  °f  iron  (pig  and 
scrap),  48,491  casks  of  lime,  27,035  bushels  of  oats,  8,149 
tons  of  plaster,  73,177  sacks  of  salt,  3,116,600  shingles, 
2,053  barrels  of  tar  and  rosin,  and  43,112  bushels  of  wheat. 
The  principal  articles  loaded  at  the  clock  on  outgoing  vessels 
the  same  year  consisted  of  423,194  barrels  of  flour,  56,367 
packages  of  tobacco,  143,000  bushels  of  wheat,  and  1,117 
tierces  of  tobacco.2  The  receipts  from  dockage  for  1860 
were  $50,128.03,  the  disbursements  were  $7,721.52,  and  the 
net  income  $42,406.51.  The  dock  was  decidedly  the  most 
profitable  part  of  the  company's  works.3  Following  the 
Civil  War  the  trade  of  the  dock  declined  rapidly  owing  to 
increased  traffic  on  the  railways  and  the  consequent  decline 
of  Richmond  as  a  port.  In  1880  the  receipts  from  dock- 
age were  only  $10,446.31.* 

By  far  the  most  important  work  of  the  company  was  the 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  802-803. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  787.  3  Ibid. 

^Forty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  <§•  K.  Co.,  p.  153. 


!66     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [406 

canal  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan,  a  distance  of  196^ 
miles.1  It  was  completed  to  Lynchburg,  a  distance  of 
147 YZ  miles,  in  1840,  and  to  Buchanan  in  1851.  The 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  was  thirty  feet  wide  at 
the  bottom,  fifty  feet  wide  at  the  water-line,  and  five  feet 
deep.  The  tow-path  was  twelve  feet  wide,  and  the  berm 
bank2  eight  feet.  The  locks  were  one  hundred  feet  long 
between  the  gates  and  fifteen  feet  wide  in  the  chamber. 
The  total  lockage  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan  embraced 
ninety  lift  locks,  having  a  total  lift  of  seven  hundred  and 
twenty-eight  feet.  Other  works  built  along  the  canal  con- 
sisted of  six  guard  locks,  two  accommodation  locks,  twenty- 
three  dams,  twelve  aqueducts,  one  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
culverts,  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  farm  and  road  bridges 
over  the  canal,  twenty  tow-path  bridges,  and  one  street 
bridge  of  one  hundred  feet  span  over  the  basin  at  Lynch- 
burg. The  cost  of  the  first  division,  from  Richmond  to 
Lynchburg,  was  $5,837,628,  or  $39,082  per  mile;  that  of 
the  second,  from  Lynchburg  to  Buchanan,  $2,422,556,  or 
$48,451  per  mile.  In  the  second  division  were  twenty-eight 
miles  of  canal  and  twenty-two  miles  of  slack-water  naviga- 
tion. The  canal  as  a  whole,  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan, 
contained  159^4  miles  of  canal  and  36%  miles  of  slack- 
water  navigation,  and  cost  $8,259,i84.3 

1  In  estimating  the  length  of  the  canal  it  was  customary  to  add  the 
dock  and  tidewater  connections,  making  the  total  197^  miles. 

2  The    berm    bank,     or    berm     ditch,    was     described    as     follows : 
"  Along  the  entire  canal,  on  the  lower  or  river  side,  there  is  a  ditch, 
called  the  soakage  ditch,  which  is  intended  to  prevent  damage  to  the 
adjacent   land  by  percolation   from  the  canal;   while  on  the  upper  or 
hill  side,  there  is  commonly  a  ditch,  called  the  berm  ditch,  intended  to 
catch  the  washing  from  the  neighboring  slopes  or  streams,  to  prevent 
its  passing  into  the  canal,  and  convey  it  off  through  culverts,  at  suitable 
points   under  the  canal."     Letter  to  Richmond  Enquirer,  February  7, 
1867. 

3  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  /.  R.    &   K.   Co.,  pp.  671-672.     The 
slack-water  navigation  was  by  means  of  locks  and  dams. 


407]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  167 

The  third  division  of  the  canal  from  Buchanan  to  Cov- 
ing! on,  a  distance  of  forty-seven  miles,  was  designed  to 
consist  of  forty-one  miles  of  canal  and  six  miles  of  slack- 
water  navigation.  It  was  estimated  to  cost  $2,555,131,  and 
the  first  fifteen  miles  above  Buchanan  were  put  under  con- 
tract in  1853,  but  for  want  of  funds  the  work  on  this  divi- 
sion was  suspended  in  1856.  The  amount  expended  on 
this  portion  of  the  line  was  $5ii,O94.1 

The  canal  was  located  on  the  north  side  of  James  river 
from  Richmond  to  within  a  few  miles  of  Lynchburg,  and  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river  from  Lynchburg  to  the  Blue 
Ridge  Canal,  a  distance  of  about  seventeen  miles.  Here  it 
crossed  again  to  the  north  side  of  the  river  and  consisted 
of  a  sort  of  mixed  slack-water  navigation  from  Balcony 
Falls  to  Buchanan.2 

Ancillary  to  the  first  division  of  the  canal  was  the  Riv- 
anna  Connection,  consisting  of  a  branch  canal  of  about  four 
miles  in  length  which  connected  the  Rivanna  river  with 
the  main  line  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal.  In 
effecting  this  improvement  the  company  expended  $115,- 
043. 3  Connected  with  the  second  division  of  the  canal  was 
the  North  River  improvement,  extending  a  distance  of  nine- 

1  Though  never  completed,  this  division  of  the  canal  was  definitely 
located,  and  was  designed  to  have  a  lockage  of  464^  feet.  The  por- 
tion actually  completed  embraced  ten  lift  locks  and  the  abutments  and 
piers  of  three  of  the  aqueducts  over  the  James  river.  The  foundations 
of  two  of  the  dams,  up  to  the  surface  of  low  water,  were  constructed. 
The  Mason  tunnel,  198  feet  long,  was  completed.  Of  the  Marshall 
tunnel,  designed  to  be  1900  feet  long,  about  800  feet  had  been  excavated 
before  the  work  was  suspended.  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co,,  p.  672. 

*  All  the  charts  portraying  the  location  of  the  canals  of  the  United 
States  which  the  author  has  seen  place  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Canal  on  the  north  side  of  the  river  continuously,  which  is  of  course 
erroneous. 

3  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  671.  Cf.  Letter  of 
President  Ellis  to  Richmond  Enquirer,  February  7,  1867. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [408 

teen  and  three-fourths  miles  from  the  mouth  of  North 
River  to  Lexington.1  The  total  mileage  of  the  canal,  in- 
cluding the  North  River  and  Rivanna  branches  was  222 
miles,  of  which  177  miles  consisted  of  artificial  canal  and 
45  miles  of  slack-water  navigation.2  In  the  fifties  it  was 
the  principal  artery  of  commerce  in  Virginia,  especially  in 
central  Virginia,  and  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  describe 
in  some  detail,  however  unexciting  it  may  be  as  literature, 
the  character  and  extent  of  its  traffic  and  of  the  tolls 
charged  on  the  same. 

Freight  traffic  on  the  canal  in  1841,  the  first  year  after 
its  completion  to  Lynchburg,  amounted  to  110,141  tons, 
for  which  the  gross  receipts  were  $121,751.29,  and  the  net 
revenue  $59,610.33.  In  1845  the  traffic  had  increased  to 
134,759  tons,  with  gross  receipts  amounting  to  $183,651.05, 
and  a  net  revenue  of  $128,519.58.  In  1852,  the  first  year 
after  the  completion  of  the  canal  to  Lynchburg,  the  tonnage 
was  210,040,  the  gross  receipts  rising  to  $277,448.97,  and 
the  net  revenue  being  $182,190.47.  The  canal  reached  its 
maximum  as  a  revenue  producer  in  1853,  when  its  tonnage 
was  231,032,,  its  gross  revenue  $293,512.92,  and  its  net 
revenue  $170,368.81.  In  1860  it  reached  its  maximum  as 
a  freight  carrier,  its  tonnage  for  that  year  being  244,273, 
but  the  gross  receipts  had  fallen  to  $238,991.27,  and  the 
net  revenue  to  $  105, 928.42. 3  After  1853  the  growing 

1  This  work  consisted  of  ten  miles  of  canal  and  nine  and  three-fourths 
miles  of  slack -water  navigation.  The  principal  works  built  on  this  im- 
provement consisted  of  22  locks  of  the  same  size  as  those  on  the  main 
canal,  and  having  a  total  lift  of  188  feet ;  9  stone  dams,  one  timber  dam 
across  North  river,  and  four  aqueducts.  The  cost  of  this  work  was 
$5^551,  including  the  amount  expended  on  it  before  its  purchase  by 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company;  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report 
J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  671,  685. 

1  Letter  of  President  Ellis  to  Richmond  Enquirer,  Feb.  7,  1867. 

8  The  panic  of  1857,  coupled  with  increasing  railroad  competition, 
affected  the  canal  adversely  at  the  very  time  when  it  should  have  ex- 
perienced a  considerable  increase  of  business  and  revenues. 


,]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  169 

raffic  of  the  railroads  interfered  with  the  canal's  business, 
which  declined  steadily  until  1860  when  it  revived  some- 
what, though  its  revenues  were  decreasing  owing  to  the 
necessity  of  reducing  tolls  in  order  to  compete  with  the 
railroads.  It  appears  that  but  for  the  disastrous  effects  of 
the  Civil  War  the  canal  would  have  continued  to  do  a  fair 
business  for  a  considerable  time.  Following  the  war,  its 
traffic  rapidly  declined  in  the  face  of  depressed  business  con- 
ditions and  the  competition  of  the  railroads.1 

In  the  adoption  of  a  tariff  of  tolls  the  company  at  first 
acted  upon  the  principle  of  graduating  the  charge  by  the 
length  of  the  voyage  and  the  use  made  of  the  canal,  and  con- 
tinued to  adhere  to  this  policy  until  the  competition  of  rival 
lines  forced  the  directors  "  so  to  regulate  the  tolls  as  to 
yield  the  greatest  possible  amount,  with  or  without  discri- 
mination of  places,  as  the  case  might  be."  2  In  1845  the 
average  rate  for  through  tonnage  was  eight  mills  per  ton 
of  2,000  pounds.3  In  1847  tne  tariff  of  tolls  on  the  canal 
for  a  ton  of  2,000  pounds  varied  from  one-half  cent  per 
ton  per  mile  for  heavy  articles  like  coal,  gravel,  iron  ore, 
lime,  and  stone  to  one  cent  per  ton  per  mile  for  articles 
such  as  corn,  hay,  pig  iron,  slate  for  roofing,  and  timber. 
The  rate  was  two  cents  per  ton  per  mile  for  vegetables,  ship- 
stuff,  dressed  stone  and  marble,  salt,  and  potatoes ;  three  cents 
per  ton  per  mile  for  apples,  barley,  potters'  ware,  bar  iron, 
flour,  wheat,  and  molasses;  three  and  one-half  cents  per 
ton  per  mile  for  tobacco  of  all  kinds;  and  four  cents  per 
ton  per  mile  for  articles  of  merchandise.  Sand  for  all  dis- 
tances was  five  cents  per  ton.4  In  1852  the  company 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  818-819.    See  also 
Forty-second  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  pp.  150-151. 
1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  728. 
1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  p.  12. 
4  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  736-739. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [4IO 

adopted  a  new  tariff  of  tolls,  reducing  the  rates  about  thir- 
teen per  cent.1  To  meet  railroad  competition  a  further  re- 
duction was  made  in  1859.  The  new  tariff  of  tolls  which 
was  put  into  operation  in  January,  1859,  ranged  from  one- 
fourth  of  a  cent  per  ton  per  mile  for  heavy  articles  like 
iron  ore  and  rough  stone  to  four  cents  per  ton  per  mile 
for  articles  of  merchandise.  The  average  rate  per  tori 
per  mile  in  1841  was  $1.81;  in  1847,  it  was  $2.27;  in 
1860,  it  had  declined  to  $i.3O.2 

The  most  approved  kind  of  freight  boat  for  use  on  the 
canal  was  one  capable  of  carrying  eighty  tons,  though  the 
load  usually  carried  seldom  exceeded  sixty  tons.  The 
heaviest  traffic  was  between  Richmond  and  Lynchburg, 
and  the  time  ordinarily  taken  by  the  freight  boats 
for  an  uninterrupted  voyage  between  the  two  points  was 
"three  and  one-half  days  up,  and  three  days  down."3 
Cabell  describes  the  possibilities  of  profit  to  operators  of 
freight  boats  on  the  canal  in  1845  as  follows: 

Making  allowances  for  procuring  freight,  unloading,  repairs, 
and  interruption  to  navigation,  a  freight  boat  will  make 
twenty-three  trips  a  year  from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg.  The 
expense  to  the  proprietor  of  such  a  boat,  including  wages  of 
captain,  five  hands  for  night  and  day  service,  towlines, 

1  Seventeenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  426;  cf.  Eighteenth 
Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  454. 

2  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  74O-744,  818.    The 
principal  articles  brought   down  the  canal  in   1860  were   15,268  hogs- 
heads of  tobacco,  53,076  boxes  of  manufactured  tobacco,  2,308  hogsheads 
of  tobacco  stems,  78,711  barrels  of  flour,  695,388  bushels  of  wheat,  10,933 
bushels  of  corn,  4,177  tons  of  pig  iron,  21,305  tons  of  coal,  20,808  tons  of 
stone,  and  9,540  cords  of  wood.    The  principal  articles  carried  up  the 
canal  that  year  were  26,045  sacks  of  salt,  9,075  tons  of  plaster,  9,724  tons 
of  coal,  2,618  tons  of  castings,  3,952  barrels  of  fish,  16,390  kegs  of  nails, 
and  9,072  tons  of  guano.     The  estimated  value  of  tonnage  on  the  canal 
in  1859  was  $21,658,000;  ibid.,  pp.  707,  817. 

3  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  p.  13. 


AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES 


171 


bowlines,  oil,  fuel,  etc,  deterioration  of  boat  and  four  horses 
and  interest  on  their  cost,  with  their  keep  and  shoeing,  for 
one  year,  is  about  $2,070,  being  $90  per  trip  or  5  mills  pel* 
ton  per  mile.  To  one  who  is  both  owner  and  captain  of  the 
boat  the  cost  is  less.  The  carrier's  profit  being  3  mills  per 
ton  per  mile,  the  net  earnings  of  a  boat  will  be  $1,208  per 
year.1 

In  1854  the  boats  regularly  engaged  in  transportation  on 
the  canal  as  freight  carriers  were  as  follows:  75  decked 
boats,  66  open  boats,  and  54  batteaux,  making  a  total  of 
195  boats,  which  required  for  their  operation  867  men 
and  423  horses.  The  estimated  value  of  the  decked  boats, 
with  their  teams,  was  $1,000  each;  of  the  open  boats,  with 
their  teams,  $500;  and  of  the  batteaux,  $25;  making  an 
aggregate  valuation  of  $IO9,35O.2 

Passenger  traffic  on  the  canal  was  never  extensive  and 
even  at  its  height  was  confined  to  six  regular  packet  boats. 
There  was  a  line  of  packet  boats  leaving  Richmond  ever 
other  day  for  Buchanan;  another  line  leaving  Richmond 
every  other  day  for  Columbia,  which  was  fifty-seven  miles 
above  Richmond  at  the  mouth  of  the  Rivanna  river;  and  a 
third  line  leaving  Richmond  every  other  day  for  Scotts- 
ville.3  These  packet  boats  required  ninety-six  men  and 
one  hundred  and  twenty  horses  to  operate  them,  and  re- 
presented an  investment  by  their  proprietors  of  $28,500  for 
the  boats  and  horses.4  In  1845  tne  ^are  f°r  passengers  on 
the  canal  from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg,  inclusive  of  lodg- 
ing and  meals,  but  not  of  tolls,  was  $5.27,  or  at  the  rate 
of  3.6  cents  per  mile.  The  time  consumed  in  making  the 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  p.  13. 
1  Tzventicth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  663-664. 
•  Ibid.,  p.  663. 

4  Twentieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  664.     The  six  packet 
boats  were  valued  at  $13,500,  and  the  120  horses  at  $15,000. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [4I2 


trip  was  "33  hours  up,  and  $il/2  hours  down".1  Prior 
to  Dec.  1  6,  1848,  the  fare  by  packet  boats  from  Richmond 
to  Lynchburg  was  fixed  at  $7.50,  including  meals,  for 
grown  persons.  In  1851  tolls  on  passengers  were  one  cent 
per  mile  for  whites  over  twelve,  and  one-half  cent  per  mile 
for  colored  persons  and  for  children  between  the  ages  of 
five  and  twelve.  Tolls  on  passengers  on  all  other  boats  than 
packets  were  two  mills  per  mile  and  at  a  rate  not  exceeding 
$3.50  per  passenger,  exclusive  of  meals,  from  Richmond 
to  Lynchburg,  and  vice  versa;  and  at  that  proportion  for 
way  travel  along  the  line  of  the  canal.  After  1848  the  re- 
gular fare  on  the  packet  boats  from  Richmond  to  Lynch- 
burg and  vice  versa  was  $3.50  without  meals,  and  $7.50  if 
meals  were  included.  Children  and  servants  regularly 
traveled  at  half  fare.2  Owing  to  railroad  competition  the 
passenger  rates  were  reduced  in  1859  to  two  mills  per  mile 
for  white  passengers  over  twelve,  and  one  mill  per  mile  for 
children  and  servants.  At  the  same  time  the  tariff  was  re- 
duced to  one  cent  per  mile  on  boats  and  flats  and  one-half 
cent  per  mile  on  batteaux.3  The  canal  was  at  all  times  a 
public  highway  and  might  be  used  by  any  one  desiring  it, 
upon  compliance  with  the  regulations  of  the  company. 

The  receipts  from  passenger  traffic  on  the  canal  the  first 
year  of  its  operation  amounted  to  $5,368.36.  The  max- 
imum receipts  from  this  source  were  in  1847  and  amounted 
to  $8,708.79.  After  1854,  when  the  competition  of  the 
railroads  began  to  be  felt,  the  traffic  dwindled  rapidly  until 
in  1859  the  receipts  were  only  $2,125.40.  But  the  reduc- 
tion in  passenger  fares  that  went  into  effect  in  1859  more 
than  doubled  the  passenger  traffic  for  1860,  and  the  revenues 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  p.  13. 
*  Seventeenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  427;  cf.  Twentieth 
Annual  Report,  ibid.,  p.  779. 
'  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  744. 


413]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  173 

from  that  source  increased  that  year  to  $5,O76.64.1  For 
purposes  of  through  travel  between  Lynchburg  and  Rich- 
mond the  canal  ceased  to  be  preferred  by  the  gentry  after 
about  1855.  I*  was  found  to  be  more  convenient  after  that 
date  to  go  by  rail  to  Farmville  and  thence  by  stage  to  Lynch- 
burg; "  so  that  for  purposes  of  through  travel  the  canal 
lasted,  one  may  say,  only  ten  or  a  dozen  years."  2 

George  W.  Bagby,  in  his  reminiscences  of  travel  on  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  describes  one  of  his  trips 
from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg  on  the  regular  packet  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  packet-landing  at  the  foot  of  Eighth  Street  presented  a 
scene  of  great  activity.  Passengers  on  foot  and  in  vehicles 
continued  to  arrive  up  to  the  moment  of  starting.  ...  At  last 
we  were  off,  slowly  pushed  under  the  bridge  at  Seventh 
Street;  then  the  horses  were  hitched;  then  slowly  along  we 
passed  the  crowd  of  boats  near  the  city,  until  at  length  with 
a  lively  jerk  as  the  horses  fell  into  a  trot,  away  we  went,  the 
cut-water  throwing  up  the  spray  as  we  rounded  the  Peniten- 
tiary hill,  and  the  passengers  lingering  on  deck  to  get  a  last 
look  at  the  fair  city  of  Richmond,  lighted  by  the  pale  rays  of 
the  setting  sun. 

As  the  shadows  deepened  everybody  went  below.  There 
was  always  a  crowd  in  those  days,  but  it  was  a  crowd  for 
the  most  part  of  our  best  people  and  no  one  minded  it.  ... 

Supper  over,  the  men  went  on  deck  to  smoke,  while  the 
ladies  busied  themselves  with  draughts  or  backgammon.  But 
not  for  long.  The  curtains  which  separated  the  female  from 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  818. 

*  George  W.  Bagby,  The  Old  Virginia  Gentleman  and  Other  Sketches 
(N.  Y.,  1910),  p.  246.  Bagby's  book,  written  in  pleasing  style  and  with 
a  delightful  vein  of  humor,  contains  a  chapter  entitled,  "Canal  Remin- 
iscences— Recollections  of  Travel  on  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Canal."  This  chap- 
ter was  also  published  in  pamphlet  form  and  a  copy  of  it  may  be  found 
in  the  New  York  Public  Library. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 

the  male  apartments  were  soon  drawn,  in  order  that  the 
steward  and  his  aids  might  make  ready  the  berths.  These 
were  three  deep,  "  lower ",  "  middle ",  and  "  upper  ",  and 
great  was  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  men  not  to  be  con- 
signed to  the  "upper".  .  .  .  We  all  went  to  bed  early.  A 
few  lingered,  talking  in  low  tones;  the  way-passengers,  in 
case  there  was  a  crowd,  were  dumped  upon  mattresses,  placed 
on  the  dining  tables.  .  .  . 

We  turned  out  early  in  the  morning  and  had  precious 
little  room  for  dressing.  .  .  .  There  was  abundant  leisure  to» 
enjoy  the  scenery,  that  grew  more  and  more  captivating  as 
we  rose,  lock  after  lock,  into  the  rock-bound  eminences  of 
the  upper  James.  .  .  . 

In  fine  summer  weather  the  passengers,  male  and  female, 
stayed  most  of  the  time  on  deck.  .  .  .  For  the  men  this  on- 
deck  existence  was  especially  delightful;  it  is  such  a  comfort 
to  spit  plump  into  the  water  without  the  trouble  of  feeling 
around  with  your  head,  in  the  midst  of  a  political  discussion, 
for  the  spittoon.  .  .  . 

All  the  scenery  in  the  world  ....  all  the  facilities  for 
spitting  that  earth  affords,  avail  not  to  keep  a  Virginian  away 
from  a  julep  on  a  hot  summer  day.  From  time  to  time  he 
would  descend  from  the  deck  of  the  packet  and  refresh  him- 
self. The  bar  was  small,  but  vigorous  and  healthy.  .  .  . 
"  Gentlemen,  your  very  good  health  " ;  "  Colonel,  my  respects 
to  you " ;  "  My  regards,  Judge ".  "  When  shall  I  see  you 
again  at  my  house?  Can't  you  stop  now  and  stay  a  little 
while,  if  it  is  only  a  week  or  two"?  "Sam"  (to  the  bar- 
keeper), "duplicate  these  drinks".  .  .  . 

Arrived  in  Lynchburg,  the  effect  of  the  canal  was  soon 
seen  in  the  array  of  freight  boats,  the  activity  and  bustle  at 
the  packet-landing.  .  .  .  1 

The  climatic  advantages  of  the  James  River  and  Kan- 
awha  Canal  were  much  superior  to  those  of  the  canals 

1  George  W.  Bagby,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  235-245. 


415]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  175 

farther  north.  From  1840  to  1848  no  suspension  on  ac- 
count of  ice  was  reported  except  for  twelve  days  in  1845. 
From  1848  to  1868,  suspension  due  to  ice  amounted  to  an 
average  of  only  fifteen  days  per  year.1  Senator  Windom, 
of  Minnesota,  estimated  that  even  if  the  route  were  com- 
pleted over  the  Alleghanies,  it  would  be  closed  by  ice  only 
about  thirty  days  in  each  year,  and  gave  this  as  a  reason 
why  it  was  to  be  preferred  to  other  routes  to  the  west  as 
a  suitable  object  of  federal  aid.2 

Ancillary  to  the  canal  were  the  South  Side  Connections, 
which  connected  the  canal  with  the  south  side  of  the  James 
river.  These  improvements  consisted  of  a  dam  and  an  out- 
let at  Cartersville,  and  three  bridges;  one  at  New  Canton, 
one  at  Hardwicksville,  and  one  at  Bent  Creek.  The  con- 
struction of  these  works  cost  the  company  $162,685.  The 
income  in  tolls  from  the  bridges  was  always  inconsiderable 
and  was  insufficient  to  meet  the  expenses  incurred  for  main- 
tenance and  repairs.  The  company  constructed  them  be- 
cause required  to  do  so  by  act  of  Assembly,  and  their  chief 
benefit  was  that  they  afforded  facilities  for  persons  and 
freight  using  the  canal  and  these  were  required  by  law  to 
pass  free  of  charge.  The  yearly  receipts  from  this  source 
were  about  $45  o.3 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  derived  a  fair 
revenue  from  water  rents,  for  the  use  of  mills  along  the 
line  of  the  canal.  The  receipts  from  this  source  amounted 
in  1842  to  $5,584.28,  and  in  the  decade  1850-1860  averaged 

1  The  Central  Water-Line  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Virginia  Capes, 
pp.  89-90. 

*  "  Cheap  Transportation,"  Speech  of  Hon.  Wm.  Windom  of  Minne- 
sota, April  24,  1874,  Senate  of  the  United  States  (Washington,  1874), 
P.  45- 

3  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  671,  826,  828; 
Nineteenth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  556. 


!-r6     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY 

about  $10,000  annually.     In  1859  they  reached  their  max- 
imum of  $i4,o87.1 

An  extended  account  having  been  given  above  of  the 
Kanawha  Turnpike  Road,  it  is  necessary  at  this  point  to 
direct  attention  to  this  road  only  with  reference  to  its  re- 
venues. In  the  fifties  its  importance  declined,  and  in  the 
sixties  it  passed  from  the  control  of  the  company  as  a  result 
of  the  dismemberment  of  the  state.  The  total  receipts 
from  this  road  in  the  decade  1835-1845  amounted  to  $116,- 
857.73,  tne  disbursements  to  $98,036.16,  and  the  net  re- 
venue to  $18,121.57.  In  1845  the  receipts  were  $9,484.47, 
the  disbursements  $5,567.50,  and  the  net  revenue  $3,926.77. 
In  1852  the  receipts  from  tolls  at  gates  and  bridges  were 
$8,028.57,  the  disbursements  $5,841.07,  the  net  revenue 
$2,187.50;  in  1857  they  were  $3,639.95,  $2,150.97,  and 
$1,488.98,  respectively.  In  1859,  however,  the  receipts 
rose  to  $8,816,  but  the  disbursements  were  $9.413.15,  leav- 
ing a  deficit  for  that  year  of  $594.67.2  The  Kanawha 
Road  was  rather  thrust  upon  the  company  at  the  time  of 
its  organization  and  was  apart  from  the  general  scheme  of 
its  works,  which  looked  more  to  the  completion  of  an  all- 
water  line  to  the  west.  It  appears  that  the  company  would 
have  been  not  unwilling  to  dispose  of  the  road  at  a  fair 
price  had  opportunity  offered,  as  it  entailed  extra  burdens 
of  administration  and  was  beginning  to  be  a  financial  liabil- 
ity in  the  late  fifties.8 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  918.  R.  A.  Brock, 
writing  in  1879,  says:  "The  franchises  and  water  privileges  of  the 
J.  iR.  &  K.  Co.  are  valuable  and  remunerative,  all  of  the  large  manu- 
facturing establishments  near  its  line  bearing  them,  tribute."  See  Brock's 
article  on  the  canal  in  Richmond  Standard,  February  15,  1879. 

a  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  pp.  1-2 ;  also 
Tzventy-third  Report,  p.  401;  Eighteenth  Report,  p.  480;  Twenty-sixth 
Report,  p.  826. 

3  For  extended  description  of  Kanawha  Turnpike  Road,  see  supra, 
pp.  81-84. 


417]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  177 

The  Blue  Ridge  turnpike  road,  which  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company  had  taken  over  in  1836  at  a  cost 
of  $9,280,  was  nine  and  one-half  miles  long.  Six  miles 
of  this  road  were  on  the  north  side  of  the  James  and 
the  remainder  was  on  the  south  side,  the  two  portions  being 
connected  by  a  ferry.  The  receipts  from  this  source  were 
inconsiderable  and  the  improvement  was  unprofitable  to 
the  company  inasmuch  as  the  income  was  usually  exceeded 
by  the  expense  of  maintenance  and  repairs.  The  revenue 
from  the  road  in  1860  amounted  to  only  $2i7.6o.1 

The  Kanawha  River  Improvement  was  an  essential  part 
of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company's  scheme  of  a 
great  central  water-way  connecting  Virginia  with  the  West 
and  would  doubtless  have  received  considerable  attention 
had  the  line  been  completed  from  Covington  through  the 
mountains,  but  inasmuch  as  this  was  not  done  the  Kanawha 
river  was  neglected,  much  to  the  disgust  of  the  people  liv- 
ing along  its  border.  Nevertheless  the  company  had  taken 
over  this  improvement  at  the  time  of  the  transfer  of  the 
works  of  the  James  River  Company  in  1835  and  it  remained 
a  part  of  the  company's  works  until  the  state  was  dismem- 
bered. The  improvement  of  the  Kanawha  river  by  the 
James  River  Company  under  state  control  had  been  under- 
taken at  a  time  when  flatboats  for  the  shipment  of  salt 
and  keel  boats  for  the  ascending  freight  were  the  modes  of 
transportation  employed,  and  when  the  steamboat  was  an 
experiment  rather  than  an  established  means  of  commerce 
on  the  river.  Later,  when  the  steamboat  and  larger  flat- 
boats  came  into  general  use  on  the  Kanawha,  the  improve- 
ments effected  proved  to  be  inadequate.  Nor  were  such 
improvements  as  had  been  made  constructed  in  a  workman- 
like and  scientific  manner.  It  being  to  the  interest  of  the 

1  Third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  229;  cf.  Twenty-sixth  An- 
nual Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  826-828. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [418 

contractors  to  obtain  the  width  and  depth  through  the 
shoals  and  rapids  required  for  the  channel  at  the  least  pos- 
sible cost,  "  the  connection  between  stretches  of  deep  water 
in  the  narrow  channel  was  formed  on  the  shortest  and 
cheapest  line  that  would  foe  had,  regardless  of  the  current 
of  the  river."  *  Hence,  as  pointed  out  by  engineer  Charles 
B.  Fisk, 

At  some  of  the  rapids,  and  elsewhere,  the  new  channels  or 
"  dog  shutes ".  .  .  ,  through  and  across  a  succession  of 
short  lengths  of  deep  water  and  shoals,  pursue  a  zigzag 
course  which  it  is  difficult  for  boats  to  follow  in  some  stages 
of  the  intermediate  between  high  and  low  water — for  they 
do  not,  at  these  stages,  coincide  or  run  parallel  with  the  river 
current.  Boats  consequently,  are  sometimes  thrown  upon  the 
side  walls  or  banks  of  the  "  dog  shutes  "  by  that  current. 

The  shutes  and  channels  made  by  the  state  are  generally 
too  narrow.  .  .  .  At  some  of  the  shoals  and  rapids  a  secure 
entrance  for  boats  in  certain  stages  of  the  river  has  not  been 
made  at  the  head  of  the  '  dog  shutes  ". 

In  consequence  of  these  defects  in  the  existing  improve- 
ments, steamboats  ....  have  difficulty  in  passing  through 
some  four  or  five  of  the  "  dog  shutes  "  below  Charleston,  and 
there  are  some  at  which,  in  certain  stages  of  the  river,  steam- 
boats are  compelled  to  follow  the  old  or  natural  channels, 
which  from  the  diversion  of  a  part  of  the  water  through  the 
new  or  excavated  channels,  have  not  as  much  depth  of  water 
as  they  would  have  if  the  river  had  been  left  in  its  natural 
state.2 

The  sluices  opened  through  the  shoals  or  shallows  of  the 

1  Memorial  of  the  Citizens  of  Kanawha,  Fayette,  Putnam,  and  Mason 
counties  to  the  Virginia  Legislature,  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  L  R. 
&  K.  Co.,  pp.  716-720. 

*  Report  of  Charles  B.  Fisk,  Engineer,  "On  the  Improvement  of  the 
Kanawha  River,  Oct.  21,  1854,"  Twentieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K. 
Co.,  pp.  746-747. 


419]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  179 

Kanawha  formed  narrow  channels  of  rapid  water  confined 
'by  stone  walls  on  each  side  and  approached  at  their  head 
"  through  funnel-shaped  wingdams  ",  and  having  been  con- 
structed unscientifically  proved  unsatisfactory.1  The  ori- 
ginal cost  of  these  improvements  had  been  $91,666.72,  and 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  had  not  attempted 
to  replace  them  by  constructing  new  works  to  meet  the 
changed  conditions  that  had  arisen.  It  had,  however,  from 
time  to  time  spent  considerable  sums  in  repairing  and  main- 
taining the  works  already  constructed.  Its  expenditures  for 
this  purpose  to  September  30,  1854,  amounted  to  $61,- 
170.40,  and  it  continued  to  make  disbursements  regularly 
thereafter  to  keep  the  improvements  in  repair,  though  never 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people  along  the  river.2  The  navi- 
gability of  the  Kanawha  varied  with  the  seasons,  upon 
which  it  depended  far  more  than  on  the  artificial  improve- 
ments maintained  by  the  company.  According  to  Fisk, 

From  four  to  five  months  each  year,  in  winter  and  spring, 
flatboats  descend  and  steamboats  ascend  and  descend  the 
Kanawha  without  obstructions  from  either  shoals  or  rapids, 
and  as  freely  as  they  in  that  period  run  on  the  Ohio. 
During  the  low  water  stages  of  the  river,  the  Kanawha  has 
about  six  inches  more  water  available  for  navigation  than  the 
Ohio  above  Point  Pleasant.  In  extreme  low  water  its  naviga- 
tion, like  that  of  the  Ohio,  is  suspended.  In  the  stages  in- 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  718.  The  sluice 
navigation  recommended  for  the  Kanawha  by  Fisk  in  1854  was  (i"> 
"  To  place  wingdams  at  right  angles  or  oblique  to  the  stream  as  circum- 
stances might  require,  and  at  suitable  points  longitudinally  of  the  river, 
to  give  sufficient  depth  of  water  over  the  shallows,  and  at  the  same 
time  distribute  the  fall  at  the  shoals  and  ripples,  over  a  greater  distance 
than  at  present;  (2)  To  form  channels  with  parallel  banks  or  dykes 
.  .  .  from  wing  wall  to  wing  wall,  and  from  one  stretch  of  deep  water 
to  another.  .  .  ."  See  Twentieth  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  748. 

1  Reports  Board  of  Public  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp.  460-462;  Twentieth 
Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  668. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [420 

termediate  between  high  and  low  water  the  navigation  of  the 
Kanawha  is  at  present  somewhat  inferior  to  that  of  the  Ohio.1 

The  traffic  on  the  Kanawha  was  inconsiderable  for  many 
years,  ibut  in  the  fifties  was  increasing  at  a  fairly  rapid  rate. 
The  chief  articles  conveyed  on  the  river  were  salt  and  coal. 
The  manufacture  of  salt  had  long  been  the  most  important 
industry  of  the  Kanawha  valley.2 

The  salt  manufactured  in  the  Kanawha  valley  in  1854 
amounted  to  3,000,000  bushels,  and  was  valued  at  $1,000,- 
ooo.3  Meanwhile  the  coal  trade  on  the  river,  which  was 
much  later  in  its  development,  had  begun  to  assume  im- 
portant proportions.  In  1855  there  were  at  least  twenty 
coal  companies  doing  business  in  Charleston  or  its  general 
vicinity  and  this  business  was  stimulated  by  the  improved 
transportation  facilities  afforded  by  the  steamboat.  The  re- 
sult was  an  increased  traffic  in  coal  on  the  river,  but  that 
in  articles  other  than  salt  and  coal  was  not  noteworthy 
prior  to  the  Civil  War,  and  consisted  chiefly  in  timber,  lum- 
<ber,  iron,  grain,  flour,  corn,  pork,  whiskey  and  general 
merchandise.4 

1  Twentieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  745. 

2 According  to  Ambler,  "In  1797  Elisha  Brooks  set  up  the  first  salt 
furnace  on  the  Great  Kanawha.  In  1807  the  Ruffner  brothers  improved 
the  method  of  manufacture  and  increased  the  quantity  of  the  Kanawha 
product.  Soon  the  "  Kanawha  salines  "  became  known  far  and  near  for 
the  excellent  quality  of  the  salt  produced.  Hundreds  of  people  became 
dependent  on  the  salt-making  industry  for  a  livelihood.  Some  built 
keel-boats  and  distributed  the  manufactured  product  along  the  Ohio 
and  its  tributaries ;  others  made  barrels  and  found  employment  in  draw- 
ing the  salt  brine  from  the  wells  and  evaporating  it.  In  1841  the 
Kanawha  Salines  produced  600,000  bushels  annually,  supplying  the 
western  markets  at  prices  of  75  cents  to  $1.00  per  bushel.  At  this  time 
salt  was  selling  at  $5.00  per  bushel  in  the  Atlantic  ports."  C  H.  Ambler, 
Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  p.  84. 

8  Twentieth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  733. 

4  Twenty-first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  71  et  seq.;  cf.  Am- 
bler's Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  p.  314. 


42i]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  181 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  never  at  any 
time  engaged  in  carrying  freight  or  passengers  on  this  part 
of  its  line,  but  its  position  was  merely  that  of  the  proprietor 
of  certain  improvements  on  a  stream  open  to  the  navigation 
of  the  public  and  for  the  use  of  which  improvements  it  was 
authorized  to  take  compensation  in  the  form  of  toll,  as 
upon  a  public  highway.  It  owned  no  boats  of  any  kind 
plying  on  the  river,  which  was  navigated  by  others  owning 
their  own  boats  and  doing  the  entire  carrying  trade.  No 
charge  was  ever  made  by  the  company  in  the  form  of  tolls 
for  passengers  on  the  Kanawha  river,  but  its  income  from 
that  portion  of  its  works  was  derived  exclusively  from  tolls 
on  freight.1  The  schedule  of  tolls  for  the  Kanawha  river 
improvement  was  as  follows:  for  drygoods,  sugar,  coffee, 
bacon,  oil,  flour,  lard,  whiskey,  beer,  empty  barrels,  staves, 
corn,  pork,  cheese,  wine,  fish  and  hemp,  at  the  rate  of  one 
cent  per  ton  per  mile;  salt,  iron,  nails,  castings,  one-half 
cent  per  ton  per  mile;  coal,  lime,  lumber,  one  fourth  cent 
per  ton  per  mile.2  In  1833  the  tolls  on  coal  and  salt  were 
one-half  per  bushel  for  all  distances.3  The  industrial  de- 
velopment of  the  Kanawha  valley  region  was  rapid  in  the 
fifties  and  had  the  company  effected  more  adequate  im- 
provements it  appears  that  a  considerable  revenue  would 
have  been  derived  from  this  portion  of  its  works,  but  the  in- 
complete improvements  then  existing  produced  a  feeling 
of  irritation  on  the  part  of  the  people,  who  formed  the  habit 
of  evading  the  tolls  whenever  possible  and  thus  depriving1 
the  company  of  much  of  the  income  to  which  it  was  legally 
entitled.4 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  850. 
?  Twentieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  740. 

3  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  560. 

4  The  receipts  from  tolls  in  1845  were  $10,017.07,  and  the  net  revenue 
was  $7,135.00.    For  the  decade  1835-45  the  receipts  were  $65,479.01,  the 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [422 

Having  passed  in  review  all  the  works  of  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company,  attention  is  now  directed  to  the 
enterprise  as  a  whole.  The  number  of  officers  and  agents 
employed  by  the  company  in  1860  to  manage  and  supervise 
its  varied  works  was  one  hundred  and  sixty-five,  who  re- 
ceived an  annual  income  of  $55,746.  The  principal  offi- 
cers were  the  president,  six  directors,  secretary,  bookkeeper, 
clerk,  the  chief  engineer,  two  assistant  engineers,  two  sup- 
erintendents of  repairs,  and  the  officers  of  the  Kanawha 
board.  In  addition  to  these  were  minor  officers  and  agents, 
'besides  a  large  force  of  subordinate  mechanics  and  labor- 
ers, raising  the  total  number  of  employees  of  the  company 
to  four  hundred  and  fifty-five.1  In  the  purchase  and  con- 
struction of  its  works  the  company  expended  the  sum  of 
$10,413,996.13  from  the  time  of  its  organization  in  1835 
to  1860.  Its  original  capital  was  $5,000,000,  but  inasmuch 
as  one  million  of  the  state's  subscription  was  in  the  form  of 
old  works,  most  of  which  had  to  be  rebuilt,  and  the  private 
subscriptions  proved  to  be  insolvent  to  the  amount  of  $73,- 
336.46,  the  company  realized  only  $3,926,663.54  as  the 
available  cash  capital  with  which  to  construct  its  works. 

disbursements  $25405.21,  the  net  revenue  $40,073.80.  In  1860  the  receipts 
were  $9,864.28,  the  disbursements  $2,116.24,  the  net  revenue  $7.748.04. 
It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Kanawha  River  Improvement,  while  un- 
satisfactory to  the  public,  was  a  source  of  profit  to  the  company. 
Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Appendix,  pp.  2,  7;  also 
Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  826. 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  /.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  689.  Officers  of  the 
Kanawha  Board,  which  was  organized  separately,  though  subordinate 
to  the  company's  directorate,  consisted  of  the  president  pro  tern.,  four 
directors,  and  secretary.  Minor  officers  and  agents  of  the  J.  iR.  &  K. 
Co.  consisted  of  three  toll-gatherers  on  the  canal,  three  toll-gatherers' 
clerks,  three  inspectors  of  boats,  ninety-eight  lock-keepers,  one  distri- 
buting agent,  two  master  masons,  four  master  carpenters,  six  overseers, 
one  ferryman,  one  collector  on  the  dock,  two  collectors  on  the  Kanawha 
river,  four  bridge-gate  keepers,  two  turnpike  agents,  thirteen  turnpike- 
gate  keepers,  and  one  patrol.  Ibid. 


423]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  183 

All  beyond  the  capital  thus  realized  was  borrowed  money, 
which  entailed  heavy  interest  charges.  The  sums  borrowed 
from  time  to  time  aggregated  $5,487,332.59.  The  com- 
pany expended  from  1835  to  1860  the  sum  of  $2,424,096 
for  repairs  and  maintenance ;  for  interest,  annuity  and  sink- 
ing fund,  $3,164,397;  for  dividends  to  stockholders,  $11,- 
599.59;  for  losses  sustained  through  General  Hamilton's 
agency,  $63,820.45 ;  making  a  total  for  expenses  and  charges 
of  $5,663,913.  In  the  same  period  it  received  from  tolls 
and  other  sources  of  income,  chiefly  water  rents,  the  sum 
of  $5,161,850.  In  1860  its  indebtedness  was  over  $7,000,- 
ooo.1 

In  1860  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was 
still  the  most  powerful  corporation  in  Virginia.2  For  the 
fiscal  year  closing  September  30,  1859,  its  income  from  its 
various  works  amounted  to  $308,895.33,  its  disbursements 
to  $155,179.45,  and  its  net  revenue  to  $153,715.88.  What 
brought  the  company  into  constant  financial  embarrass- 
ments was  not  that  it  failed  to  do  a  good  business,  but  that 
its  works  were  constructed  chiefly  with  the  proceeds  of 
loans,  the  interest  on  which  accumulated  to  such  an  extent 
that  it  kept  the  company  always  heavily  involved.  Hence 
it  was  never  profitable  to  the  stockholders.  Nevertheless, 
it  was  the  most  important  agency  of  commerce  lying  wholly 
within  the  borders  of  Virginia  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  as 
well  as  the  most  heavily  capitalized  corporation.  Despite 
its  financial  embarrassments  and  its  halting  course  of  con- 
struction, its  tonnage  in  1859  was  over  three  times  that  of 
the  Richmond  and  Danville  Railroad,  the  most  important 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  682,  685,  699,  826- 
830 ;  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1859-60,  doc,  no.  43,  pp.  5-7. 

8  Virginia  not  being  a  commercial  or  industrial  state  in  the  ante  bellum 
era,  large  corporations  backed  by  powerful  financial  interests  were  not 
a  feature  of  her  economic  life.  Her  genius  was  not  commercial,  but 
political.  Her  chief  economic  interest  was  agriculture. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [424 

railway  in  the  state  at  that  time;  and  exceeded  by  2,523 
tons  that  of  the  combined  tonnage  of  the  four  railroads  en- 
tering Richmond.1 

It  appears  that  even  as  late  as  1860  the  James  Raver  and 
Kanawha  Company  was  by  far  the  largest  freight  carrier 
in  Virginia  and  that  the  freight  traffic  on  any  of  the  more 
important  railroads  was  insignificant  by  comparison.  If 
this  was  the  case  in  1 860  it  would  be  yet  more  apparent  tak- 
ing the  decade  as  a  whole,  while  prior  to  1850  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company  loomed  up  as  the  giant  cor- 
poration of  the  state.  This  would  hold  if  the  canal  alone 
were  taken  into  consideration,  but  if  all  the  works  of  the 
company  were  included,  its  relative  importance  in  the 
scheme  of  Virginia's  internal  improvements  was  impressive 
until  the  Civil  war  and  was  overwhelming  prior  to  1853. 
The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  regarded  by 
the  people  of  Virginia  in  the  thirties,  forties,  and  fifties  as 
a  corporation  overshadowing  all  others  in  the  state  and  as 
such  was  repeatedly  referred  to  by  governors,  legislators, 
and  committees  of  the  General  Assembly.  The  traditions 
connecting  its  earlier  stages  with  the  names  of  Washing- 

1  In  their  last  annual  reports  prior  to  1860  the  freight  tonnage  reported 
by  the  railroads  having  their  terminals  in  Richmond  were  as  follows : 
the  Richmond  and  Danville  Railroad,  57,315 ;  the  Virginia  Central,  64,- 
177;  the  Richmond  and  Petersburg,  59,479;  and  the  Richmond,  Fred- 
ericksburg  &  Potomac,  22,791 ;  making  a  total  for  these  four  roads  of 
203,762  tons  of  freight  on  their  aggregate  length  of  433  miles.  But 
the  tonnage  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  for  the  same  year 
was  206,295.  The  only  other  railroads  in  the  state  which  made  reports 
of  tonnage  in  1859  were  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee,  59,154;  the  Orange 
and  Alexandria,  29,300;  the  Manassas  Gap,  28,765,  the  Winchester  and 
Potomac,  15,550;  the  Norfolk  and  Petersburg,  7,502;  and  the  Seaboard 
and  Roanoke,  32,660.  These  railroads,  with  a  total  mileage  in  1860  of 
562  'had  an  aggregate  tonnage  in  the  preceding  year  of  172,931  tons, 
which  was  exceeded  considerably  by  that  of  the  canal  for  the  same 
period.  The  freight  business  of  all  the  ten  railroads  named  above 
combined  was  in  1859  but  376,693  tons,  while  that  of  the  canal  was 
206,295  tons ;  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  708. 


425]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  185 

ton,  Marshall,  Madison,  Breckinridge,  and  others  of  the 
foremost  men  of  the  state,  coupled  with  the  ever-present 
hope  of  completing  the  work  as  a  great  central  waterway 
to  the  west,  made  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  popular  mind, 
even  after  the  railroad  era  was  in  full  swing,  and  carried 
the  day  for  the  enterprise  in  many  a  crisis  of  its  fortunes.1 
Nevertheless  the  canal  was  doomed.  Railroads  were 
more  in  harmony  with  the  impatient  wants  of  the  age  and 
when  once  they  had  demonstrated  their  practicability  and 
usefulness  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  like  most 
of  the  others  in  the  country,  was  unable  to  compete  with 
them  and  finally  succumbed  to  their  superior  advantages. 
Such  competition  was  hardly  felt  by  the  canal  prior  to  1853, 
but  after  that  time  it  encroached  steadily  upon  the  traffic 
and  revenues  of  the  canal,  whose  whole  tonnage  basin  was 
finally  circumscribed  by  the  railroads,  and  rendered  its  situa- 
tion hopeless.  In  the  fall  of  1859  the  rivalry  between  the 
railroads  and  the  canal  was  described  by  President  Ellis  as 
follows : 

The  Southside,  Danville,  and  Central  railroads  are  formidable 
rivals  to  the  canal  ....  and  have  diverted  an  amount  of 
trade  and  travel,  the  loss  of  which  has  told  very  perceptibly  on 
its  revenues.  .  .  .  With  slight  exceptions  ....  there  had 
been  a  steady  increase  of  revenue  ....  down  to  1854.  In 
that  year  these  works  began  to  divert  trade  from  our  line,  and 
since  then,  notwithstanding  the  tribute  brought  to  the  canal 
by  the  Virginia  and  Tennessee  Railroad,  and  notwithstanding 
the  effect  produced  upon  the  trade  of  the  entire  line  by  the 
completion  of  the  tidewater  connection,  there  has  been  a  fall- 
ing off  year  by  year.2 

1  See  the  annual  messages  of  the  governors  of  Virginia,  reports  of  the 
Board  of  Public  Works,  memorials  of  internal  improvement  conven- 
tions, petitions  to  the  legislature,  and  the  annual  reports  of  the  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.,  passim. 

*  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1859-60,  doc.  no.  43,  p.  32;  cf.  Twenty-sixth  Annual 


1 86     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [426 

Though  the  railroads  continued  to  diminish  the  tonnage 
and  revenues  of  the  canal  until  they  finally  reduced  it  to 
bankruptcy  and  abandonment,  there  was  no  other  canal  en- 
terprise in  the  state  that  interfered  seriously  either  with  its 
traffic  or  with  its  appropriations.  The  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  would  have  become  its  competitor  for  trade  only 
in  the  event  that  both  these  enterprises  had  carried  out 
their  original  plan  of  connecting  with  the  Ohio  by  an  all- 
water  route,  but  as  both  failed  in  this  ambition  neither  in- 
terfered with  the  traffic  of  the  other.  Nor  did  they  con- 

Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  706.  The  "  Southside  'Railroad  "  referred  to 
above  was  the  Atlantic,  'Mississippi,  and  Ohio  Railroad,  the  construc- 
tion of  which  began  in  1852.  This  road  completed  106.91  miles  in  1852 ; 
75.94  miles  in  1853;  86.08  miles  in  1854;  and  in  1860  had  a  mileage  of 
428.36  miles.  In  1881  it  was  merged  into  the  Norfolk  and  Western 
Railroad  Company's  system.  Its  route  lay  through  Petersburg  and 
Farmville  and  paralleled  that  of  the  canal  roughly  for  a  considerable 
distance.  See  Tenth  Census  of  the  United  States,  1880,  vol.  iv,  pp.  34&- 
349;  and  Poor's  Manual  of  Railroads,  1889  (N.  Y.,  1889),  p.  1039.  The 
"Danville  Railroad"  was  the  'Richmond  and  Danville  Railroad  In 
1850  construction  began  on  this  line  and  14.35  miles  were  built  that 
year;  31.67  miles  in  1851;  30.28  miles  in  1852;  11.55  miles  in  1853; 
1040  miles  in  1854;  32.70  miles  in  1855;  13.70  miles  in  1856.  In  June, 
1860,  its  mileage  was  153.32  miles.  It  competed  with  the  canal  for 
freight  on  the  south  side  of  James  river.  Tenth  Census,  ibid.,  pp.  350- 
3535  Poor's  Manual,  ibid.,  p.  610.  The  "Central  ^Railroad"  was  the 
Virginia  Central  Railroad.  This  road  was  chartered  February  18,  1836, 
as  the  Louisa  .Railroad  Company,  but  its  name  was  changed  to  the  Vir- 
ginia 'Central  Railroad  Company  on  March  5,  1849,  and  on  March  i, 
1867,  became  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company,  extending  a 
distance  of  205^  miles  from  Richmond  to  Covington,  via  Charlottes- 
ville.  Construction  began  with  35.54  miles  in  1839;  13.73  miles  in  1840; 
21  miles  in  1850;  27.54  miles  in  1851;  and  by  1860  had  reached  146.80 
miles.  It  was  completed  to  'Covington  in  1867,  its  cost  from  Richmond 
to  that  point  being  $6,090,140.  This  road  was  the  chief  competitor  of 
the  canal  and  began  to  interfere  with  its  traffic  about  1851,  particularly 
on  that  part  of  the  road  between  Richmond  and  Charlottesville.  Tenth 
Census,  ibid.,  pp.  346,  353 ;  J.  D.  Imboden,  "  Report  on  Virginia,"  in 
Report  on  the  Internal  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  1886,  Part  II 
of  Commerce  and  Navigation,  Appendix,  p.  20;  Seventeenth  Annual 
Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  345. 


AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  187 

tinue  to  be  rivals  for  appropriations  'before  the  Virginia 
legislature.  In  the  matter  of  subscriptions  to  stock  in  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  'Canal  Company,  Virginia  failed  to 
measure  up  to  the  expectations  of  the  friends  of  that  com- 
pany and  soon  ceased  to  be  interested  in  it  altogether.  The 
Virginia  assembly  subscribed  $250,000  to  this  enterprise  in 
its  beginning,  but  made  no  additional  subscriptions.  The 
federal  government  definitely  abandoned  it  in  1832  and  at 
about  the  same  time  Virginia  discontinued  its  patronage  and 
refused  all  aid;  and  it  came  to  be  regarded  as  distinctively 
•a  Maryland  project.  Thus  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  had  no  occasion  to  fear  it  as  a  rival  enterprise.1 

Throughout  the  whole  course  of  its  history  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  handicapped  by  sectional 
animosities  and  the  jealousy  of  rival  interests.  Though  it 
was  practically  a  state  enterprise  in  all  but  name,  sectional 
differences  made  it  difficult  to  secure  legislative  aid.  At  the 
session  of  1836-37,  at  the  very  time  when  the  newly-in- 
corporated company,  with  the  state  as  a  majority  stock- 
holder, was  making  the  dirt  fly  on  the  canal  to  Lynch- 
l)urg  and  was  beginning  to  be  cramped  for  funds  to  pro- 
secute the  work,  the  legislature,  instead  of  concentrating  on 
this  project,  scattered  its  funds  on  many  internal  improve- 
ment schemes.  At  that  session  the  state  appropriated  about 
$4,500,000  for  such  enterprises,  including  nine  railroads. 

1  G.  W.  Ward,  The  Early  Development  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  Project,  J.  ;H.  U.  Studies,  series  xvii,  pp.  107-108;  A.  B.  Hulbert, 
Great  American  Canals,  vol.  i  (Cleveland,  Ohio,  1904),  p.  150;  Docs.  H. 
j)f  D.,  1832-33,  doc.  no.  47.  The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  was  con- 
structed in  the  years  1828  to  1850.  It  is  179.5  miles  long,  forty  feet 
wide  at  bottom  and  fifty  to  sixty  feet  wide  at  the  surface,  with  a  depth 
•of  six  feet.  It  has  seventy-five  locks,  and  cost  $11,290,307.  See  T.  C. 
Purdy,  "Report  on  the  Canals  of  the  United  States,"  Tenth  Census, 
1880,  pp.  22-23.  Coal  constituted  the  principal  tonnage  of  this  canal, 
and  it  was  for  many  years  one  of  the  most  important  coal-carriers  in 
the  country. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [42& 

This  serves  to  illustrate  the  extent  of  log  rolling  and  the 
interplay  of  sectional  interests  in  the  legislature.  Every 
section  of  the  state  must  needs  have  a  slice  of  the  appropria- 
tion; all  the  varied  interests  must  be  placated  before  any 
one  could  be  supported.  It  was  pork-barrel  legislation  of 
the  most  approved  type.1 

From  1837  to  1840  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany was  jeopardized  by  the  wave  of  enthusiasm  for  rail- 
roads which  swept  over  Virginia  at  that  time.  This  en- 
thusiasm cooled  in  the  decade  of  the  forties,  however,  and 
the  canal  held  the  foremost  place  in  public  interest  and  re- 
ceived large  financial  support.  It  seemed  preposterous  to 
many  men  of  affairs  to  abandon  such  a  work,  especially 
when  railroads  showed  small  returns  on  the  money  invested 
in  them.  In  the  decade  1850-60  there  was  a  marked  re- 
vival of  interest  in  railroads  and  public  sentiment  grew  cold 
toward  the  canal.  Railroads  had  demonstrated  their  utility 
and  their  superiority  to  canals  was  generally  recognized, 
though  Virginia  was  slower  to  arrive  at  this  conviction 
than  was  the  case  with  most  of  the  other  states  and  clung 
longer  to  the  idea  of  canals.  Reluctance  to  abandon  the 
idea  of  a  great  waterway  that  had  so  many  treasured  tradi- 
tions contributed  to  dilatoriness  in  railroad  building.  It 
appears  to  be  a  debatable  question  whether  the  railroads  in- 
terfered with  the  canal  or  the  canal  interfered  with  the 

1  Some  of  the  works  aided  by  the  state  at  this  session  were:  Rich- 
mond and  Petersburg  R.  R.  Co.,  $200,000;  Louisa  R.  R.  'Co.,  $120,000; 
Portsmouth  and  Roanoke  R.  R.  Co.,  $50,000;  iRoanoke,  Danville  and 
Junction  lR.  R.  Co.,  $320,000;  Falmouth  and  Alexandria  R.  R.  Co., 
$400,000;  Lynchburg  and  Tennessee  R.  !R.  Co.,  $200,000;  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  $302,000;  City  Point  R.  R.  Co.,  $60,000;  North  Western 
Turnpike,  $65,000;  New  Shenandoah  Company,  $46,666;  Dismal  Swamp 
Canal,  $126,000;  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  $1,990,000;  besides  smaller  sums  for 
various  turnpike  roads.  See  Niles  Register,  April  22,  1837.  It  was  the 
custom  of  the  state  to  subscribe  three-fifths  of  the  capital  stock  of  in- 
ternal improvement  companies. 


429]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  189 

railroads  the  more,  in  the  thirties  and  forties.  There 
seems  to  'be  no  doubt  that  prior  to  1850  the  railroads  feared 
the  canal  more  than  the  canal  feared  the  railroads,  but  that 
after  that  time  the  situation  was  reversed.  The  rivalry 
between  them  was  constant,  and  at  times  bitter,  and  was  a 
part  of  the  larger  story  of  sectional  conflict  during  this  era. 
The  experiences  of  the  railroads  in  getting  their  lines  con- 
structed were  not  dissimilar  to  those  of  the  canal.  It  was 
difficult  for  them  to  secure  the  funds  necessary  to  push  the 
work.  The  state's  subscription,  as  in  the  case  of  the  canal, 
was  only  available  in  proportion  to  the  amount  paid  in  by 
the  private  stockholders,  who  frequently  failed  to  meet  the 
assessments  or  repudiated  them  altogether.  They  also  ex- 
perienced difficulty  in  selling  their  bonds,  despite  the  fact 
that  these  were  guaranteed  by  the  legislature.  Thus  the 
railroads  progressed  by  slow  and  painful  stages  to  comple- 
tion.1 

Nothing  serves  better  to  illustrate  both  the  jealousy  of 
the  various  sections  with  reference  to  internal  improvements 
and  the  rivalry  between  the  railroads  and  the  canal  than  the 
struggle  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  for 
a  suitable  right  of  way  through  Virginia.  Immediately  after 
having  been  chartered  this  road  appealed  to  the  Virginia 
legislature  for  a  right  of  way  across  the  state,  which  was 
secured  only  after  a  sectional  conflict.  The  company  then 
sought  permission  to  construct  its  line  to  the  Ohio  via  the 
Shenandoah  and  Kanawha  valleys,  partly  because  the  en- 
gineering difficulties  were  less  by  this  route  and  partly  be- 
cause the  farther  south  the  road  would  run  the  less  the  com- 

1  Caroline  E.  MacGill,  History  of  Transportation  in  the  United  States 
before  1860  (Washington,  1917),  pp.  458-459.  The  capital  stock  of  all 
the  railroads  in  Virginia  in  1853  was  only  $16,117,100,  and  the  mileage 
actually  completed  was  but  676,  though  there  were  636  miles  in  process 
of  construction.  Ibid.,  p.  462;  cf.  Hunt's  Merchants'  Magazine,  xxvi, 
p.  505,  April,  1853. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [430 

petition  with  the  Pennsylvania  lines  of  improvement.  This 
petition  was  strongly  supported  by  the  trans-Alleghany 
press,  but  was  defeated  by  the  east  because  it  was  feared 
that  the  result  would  be  to  build  up  Baltimore  at  the  ex- 
pense of  Richmond.  At  the  session  of  1844-45  tne  Whig 
majority  in  the  House  rejected  petitions  from  the  northwest 
praying  that  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  be  allowed  to 
construct  its  lines  via  Parkersburg  and  Clarksburg  to  the 
Ohio,  and  fixed  the  terminus  at  Wheeling.  This  action  was 
taken  partly  from  fear  that  the  road  would  divert  trade 
from  eastern  Virginia  to  Maryland,  and  partly  from  a  de- 
sire to  protect  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company 
from  competition.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  canal  forces 
Wheeling  was  preferable  to  Parkersburg  as  the  terminus  of 
the  railroad,  as  being  farthest  removed  from  its  proposed 
all-water  line.  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company 
could  always  be  counted  upon  to  join  hands  with  the  in- 
terests opposed  to  granting  favors  to  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad,  or  to  any  other  railroad  jeopardizing  its  in- 
terests.1 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  having  been 
chartered  and  organized  at  a  time  when  public  sentiment 
was  divided  as  to  the  relative  advantages  of  the  railroad 
and  the  canal  as  a  means  of  transportation,  experienced 
from  the  first  the  disadvantage  of  undertaking  its  work  at 
a  time  when  the  railroad  era  had  already  begun.  From  the 
first  the  public  counsels  as  well  as  those  of  certain  private 
stockholders  were  divided  as  to  the  form  the  improvement 
should  take,  and  this  reflected  unfavorably  on  the  progress 
of  the  enterprise.  Cabell  favored  a  continous  canal  con- 

1 N iles'  Register,  vol.  33,  p.  163;  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.,  1829; 
March  15,  1831;  Fa.  Acts,  1826-27,  pp.  78-84;  House  Journal,  1830-31, 
p.  249;  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  pp.  124-125,  180,  241-242; 
Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia,  p.  114;  House  Journal,  1845-46, 
docs,  i,  12,  22. 


43I]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  191 

necting  Richmond  with  the  Ohio,  but  as  time  passed  his 
views  were  questioned  seriously  by  'both  the  legislature  and 
the  company  and  he  retired  from  the  presidency.  It  was 
thought  at  the  time  of  his  retirement  that  the  improvement 
would  be  completed  by  a  railroad  from  Buchanan  or  Cov- 
ington  to  the  Ohio  river,  and  the  stockholders  voted  in  favor 
of  this  method.  Though  there  continued  to  be  much  dif- 
ference of  opinion  on  the  part  both  of  the  company  and  of 
the  public  as  to  the  preferable  form  for  the  improvement, 
Cabell's  successors  in  the  presidency  reverted  to  his  policy 
of  a  continuous  water  route.1  The  result  of  a  survey  in 
1841  had  caused  the  stockholders  to  vote  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  in  favor  of  an  unbroken  water  communication 
to  the  Ohio.  But  a  few  years  later  sentiment  veered  around 
in  favor  of  a  railroad  from  Buchanan  or  Covington,  and 
Cabell  resigned.  'His  successors,  however,  with  the  ex- 
perience of  Pennsylvania  in  mind,  reflected  upon  the  disad- 
vantages of  a  broken  line  of  improvement  and  the  stock- 
holders supported  them  in  the  policy  of  a  continuous  water 
route  to  the  end.  The  result  of  this  shifting  sentiment,, 
along  with  the  oppositon  of  the  railroad  interests  and  the 
increasing  apathy  toward  the  enterprise  on  the  part  of  those 
not  immediately  benefited  by  it,  was  to  retard  the  progress 
of  the  work  and  to  render  its  very  existence  precarious.1 

The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  inherited  the 
sectional  prejudices  which  had  prevented  the  James  River 
Company,  as  a  state  enterprise,  from  completing  the  canal. 
In  1823  work  on  the  canal  was  suspended  because  of  the 
extreme  dissatisfaction  of  those  portions  of  the  state  at 
the  heavy  appropriations  hitherto  made  for  the  work  and 
at  the  prospect  of  yet  larger  "  drafts  made  by  this  object 

1  Eleventh  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  613-614;  also,  Memo- 
rial of  the  Citizens  of  Kanawha  County,  Dec.  30,  1858,  Twentieth  An- 
nual Report  7.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  736. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [432 

on  the  common  stock  in  the  general  improvement  fund."  l 
Sectional  jealousy  was  a  menace  to  the  canal  throughout 
its  entire  history,  and  it  was  able  to  make  what  progress  it 
did  only  through  the  aid  of  powerful  friends  in  the  legis- 
lature, who  were  forced,  however,  to  resort  to  shrewd  poli- 
tical manipulation  and  compromise  to  obtain  appropriations. 
At  almost  every  session  there  was  a  wrangle  over  internal 
improvements.  In  1846  the  situation  was  described  in  the 
contemporary  press  as  follows: 

We  regret  to  observe  indications  of  a  deplorable  want  of 
harmony,  from  which  an  entire  failure  is  to  be  apprehended. 
So  far  no  scheme  or  interest  has  been  able  to  rally  a  majority 
of  the  legislature — sectional  interests,  the  east  against  the 
west,  as  a  matter  of  course,  is  the  first  grand  division  of  in- 
terests. Then  these  have  each  some  half  dozen  sub-divisions, 
such  as  Wheeling  against  Parkersburg ;  the  James  River  Canal 
against  the  railroads,  etc,  etc? 

The  unfavorable  trend  of  public  sentiment  toward  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  reflected  in  the 
complaints  which  led  to  the  appointment  of  a  legislative 
committee  of  investigation  in  1854.  This  committee  re- 
ported : 

An  enterprise  of  vast  importance  to  the  public  and  private  in- 
terests of  the  state  ....  enjoying  the  privilege  of  transport- 
ing passengers  and  a  great  amount  of  tonnage  over  a  long 
water  line,  it  has  been  involved  in  embarrassments  and  difficul- 
ties from  its  organization  to  this  day,  and  has  unhappily  pro- 
voked the  hostility  and  incurred  the  distrust  of  large  numbers 
— perhaps  a  majority  of  the  people  and  public  men  of  the 
state  ...... 

1  Ibid.;  also  Cabell's  Defense  of  the  Canal  and  of  a  Continuous  Water 
Line  through  Virginia,  pp.  587-588. 

2  Niks'  Register,  vol.  69,  p.  304,  Jan.  10,  1846. 


433]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  193 

It  is  not  the  design  or  desire  of  this  committee  to  depreciate 
the  value  of  this  improvement.  It  is  the  most  important  in 
the  commonwealth  to  the  interests  of  its  citizens.  But  doubt 
as  to  the  possibility  of  prosecuting  it  to  the  Ohio,  and  the 
difficulties  and  delays  attending  its.  past  operations,  with  other 
causes,  have  excited  disgust  and  prejudice,  which  diminish 
the  value  of  its  stock,  and  effectually  prevent  any  capitalist, 
save  one  as  deeply  interested  as  the  state  of  Virginia,  from' 
risking  any  means  in  advancing  its  fortune.  .  .  . 

The  private  subscribers  paid  in  their  original  subscriptions 
and  then  stopped  their  pecuniary  contributions;  but  they  have 
written  memorials  and  petitions  constantly,  to  ask  aid  from 
the  legislature  ....  In  the  meantime  the  state  has  been 
burdened  with  the  cost  of  this  work,  her  property  has  borne 
the  increased  taxation,  her  credit  the  weight,  her  finances  the 
embarrassment  incurred  in  behalf  of  this  company.  .  .  .  1 

A  Norfolk  representative,  in  making  a  plea  in  1857  for 
the  completion  of  the  water  line  to  the  west,  refers  to 

The  conflicting  jealousy  of  the  sections  and  cities  of  Vir- 
ginia, which,  under  the  hallucination  that  each  were  rivals 
of  the  other,  have  kept  back  the  prize,  which  though  it  might 
have  benefited  some  more  than  others,  yet  still  would  have 
conferred  vast  benefits  on  all.2 

At  about  the  same  time  E.  Lorraine,  the  chief  engineer  of 
the  company,  in  one  of  his  reports  calls  attention  to  the 
growing  alienation  of  western  Virginia  on  account  of  the 
lack  of  proper  means  of  communication  between  the  two 
sections.  The  trade  and  commerce  of  the  trans-Alleghany 
inhabitants  were  principally  with  the  people  of  Ohio,  and 

1  Report  of  the  Joint  Committee  to  Investigate  the  Affairs  of  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  Documents  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, 1853-54,  doc.  no.  62,  pp.  6-8;  see  also  Twentieth  Annual  Report 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  769-771. 

*D.  T.  Bisbie,  An  Appeal  for  the  Completion  of  the  Water  Line 
through  Virginia  (Richmond,  1857),  pp.  23-24. 


I94     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [434 

their  children  were  sent  to  Cincinnati  to  be  educated  rather 
than  to  eastern  Virginia.  Lorraine,  lamenting  this  condi- 
tions, says :  "  As  long  as  the  mountain  barriers  which 
divided  the  state  are  unsubdued  by  the  hand  of  improve- 
ment, so  long  will  there  be  mountains  of  sectional  jealousy 
and  prejudice  unremoved.1 

The  fortunes  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company 
were  affected  adversely  not  only  by  the  jealousy  of  rival 
sections  and  enterprises,  but  also  by  the  caprices  of  partisan 
politics.  The  Whigs  were  more  friendly  to  the  company 
than  the  Democrats,  and  favorable  legislation  was  more 
likely  to  be  forthcoming  in  times  of  Whig  ascendancy. 
The  Whig  Assembly  of  1834-35  made  the  subscriptions 
necessary  to  make  the  charter  effective,  and  denied  the  peti- 
tions coming  from  Democratic  strongholds  which  might 
be  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  new  company.  This 
policy  incurred  the  hostility  of  the  sections  not  adjacent  to 
the  proposed  line  of  improvement  and  contributed  to  the 
defeat  of  the  Whigs  at  the  ensuing  election.  The  return 
of  the  Democrats  to  power  militated  against  the  canal  and 
the  legislatures  of  the  period  1835-36  to  1837-38  gave  it 
little  assistance,  but  sought  to  conserve  party  interests  by 
granting  appropriations  for  turnpikes  and  railroads  which 
traversed  Democratic  constituences.  Inasmuch  as  the  line 
of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  traversed  a 
region  where  the  Whigs  were  in  the  ascendancy,  there  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  disposition  to  regard  it  as  a  Whig1 
enterprise  and  to  give  it  scant  attention,  but  the  hearts  of 
the  people  in  Democratic  strongholds  were  made  glad  by 
substantial  appropriations  to  internal  improvements  in  those 
sections.2  At  the  session  of  1844-45  tne  Whig  House  of 

1  Twenty-first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  73. 
1  Niles1  Register,  vol.  52,  p.  1 15 ;  vol.  53,  p.  352 ;  Ambler,  Sectionalism 
in  Virginia,  pp.  240-241 ;  House  Journal,  1834-35,  PP-  103,  181. 


435]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  195 

Delegates  was  desirous  of  making  a  substantial  appropria- 
tion to  the  company,  but  the  measure  was  defeated  by  the 
Democratic  Senate.  The  Democratic  legislature  of  1845- 
46  did  make  an  appropriation  to  continue  the  canal  beyond 
Lynchburg,  but  stipulated  that  it  should  not  extend  further 
than  Buchanan,  whereas  its  logical  terminus  was  at  least  as 
far  as  Covington.  The  Democratic  assemblies  were  not 
averse  to  appropriations  to  internal  improvements  and  made 
liberal  grants  to  those  objects  from  1847  to  I^5°»  but  m 
general  were  quite  careful  to  make  them  in  such  a  way  as 
to  strengthen  their  political  fences.  From  1850  to  the  Civil 
War  the  Democrats  were  in  control  of  the  state  government, 
and  it  was  no  doubt  owing  in  part  to  this  fact  that  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  was  neglected  until  at 
the  very  end  of  the  decade  when,  for  reasons  stated  below, 
it  was  taken  under  the  patronage  of  the  party.  It  would 
be  easy  to  overestimate  the  significance  of  the  canal  as  a 
sort  of  Whig  enterprise,  but  the  evidence  appears  to  be  con- 
clusive that  it  was  generally  in  favor  with  the  Whigs  and 
in  disfavor  with  the  Democrats;  and  that  from  1835  to 
1860  it  was  the  football  of  politics,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
Democrats  were  more  often  in  control  of  the  state  govern- 
ment than  were  the  Whigs,  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  had  no  friend  at  court  the  greater  part  of  the 
time.1 

Trans- Alleghany  Virginia  was  not  united  in  its  demands 
for  internal  improvements.  The  Whigs  of  the  Kanawha 
valley  insisted  upon  the  completion  of  the  water  line  to  the 
Ohio  and,  failing  this,  at  least  upon  the  adequate  improve- 
ment of  the  Kanawha  river;  but  the  region  around  Wheel- 
ing, which  was  Democratic,  was  not  interested  in  promot- 
ing the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  in  whole  or  in 

1  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  pp.  241-243,  300302 ;  House  Jour- 
nal. 1844-45,  docs.  no.  13,  22;  ibid.,  1845-46,  doc.  no.  14. 


I96     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [436 

part,  seeking  rather  railway  communication  with  the  east 
through  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.  The  same  con- 
ditions existed  throughout  the  whole  section  traversed  by 
this  railway.  Again,  the  proposed  Covington  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  a  state  enterprise,  was  designed  to  run  from  Cov- 
ington to  Charleston,  but  from  the  latter  point  diverged 
from  the  Kanawha  to  run  in  a  southwesterly  direction  to 
Huntington.  This  satisfied  the  people  in  the  vicinity  of 
Huntington,  but  failed  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  people  of 
the  Kanawha  Valley  from  'Charleston  to  Point  Pleasant, 
whose  interests  still  pointed  to  the  improvement  of  the 
Kanawha  river.  Amid  these  conflicting  interests  the  poli- 
tical forces  supporting  the  canal  proved  to  be  less  influential 
than  those  favoring  the  railroads.  The  Whigs  in  Virginia 
lost  ground  fast  after  1844,  and  an  unbroken  line  of  De- 
mocratic governors  from  1843  t°  1860  could  with  difficulty 
be  induced  to  render  aid  to  the  canal.  Only  Henry  A.  Wise, 
who  was  governor  from  1856  to  1860,  displayed  any  par- 
ticular interest  in  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company 
in  this  period  of  its  history.  Wise  had  been  friendly  to  the 
railroads,  but  had  rather  championed  the  interests  of  western 
Virginia,  which  looked  to  him  for  favorable  consideration. 
His  advocacy  of  the  claims  of  the  canal,  however,  appears 
not  to  have  been  due  to  any  conviction  as  to  its  superiority 
to  railroads,  but  rather  to  the  belief  that  in  the  probable 
event  of  civil  war  a  continuous  waterway  to  the  Ohio  would 
be  in  the  interest  of  a  united  south.  Considerations  of  high 
political  expediency  led  him  to  advocate  closer  relation- 
ships 'between  eastern  and  western  Virginia  and. he  thought 
this  might  be  brought  about  by  improved  communications. 
!He  first  sought  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  Coving- 
ton  and  Ohio  Railroad,  but  when  this  movement  failed 
through  the  clash  of  sectional  interests  and  the  financial  de- 
pression resulting  from  the  panic  of  1857,  he  lent  his  sup- 


437]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  197 

port  to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  to  streng- 
then the  ties  binding  eastern  Virginia  with  the  trans-Alle- 
ghany  region.1 

From  1854  the  people  of  the  Kanawha  Valley  became 
very  bitter  toward  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany for  its  failure  to  improve  the  Kanawha  river  for 
steamboat  traffic,  and  petitions  to  the  legislature  became 
more  frequent  and  pointed,  praying  that  something  be  done. 
This  agitation  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  branch  organiza- 
tion, called  the  Kanawha  Board,  by  act  of  February  15, 
1858,  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  navigation  of  the 
Kanawha  from  its  mouth  to  Loup  Creek  shoals.  This 
board,  the  five  directors  of  which  were  required  to  be  re- 
sidents of  the  Kanawha  valley,  was  intrusted  with  the  con- 
trol and  management  of  the  Kanawha  improvement,  sub- 
ject to  the  instructions  of  the  stockholders,  but  had  no  con- 
trol over  any  other  works  of  the  company.  Relations  be- 
tween the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  and  the 
branch  organization,  which  was  thrust  upon  it  by  the  legisla- 
ture, were  not  harmonious.  The  eastern  board  passed  a  reso- 
lution declaring  the  Kanawha  board  functus  ofhdo,  directed 
the  collectors  on  the  Kanawha  river  to  disregard  its  author- 
ity, and  appointed  a  commissioner  to  take  charge  of  its 
books  and  papers.  Against  this  action  the  Kanawha  board 
appealed  to  the  stockholders,  who  sustained  it  in  general 
meeting  in  October,  1859.  At  the  ensuing  session  of  the 
legislature  application  was  made  for  an  amendment  to  the 
act  of  Feb.  15,  1858,  defining  more  clearly  the  rights, 
powers  and  duties  of  the  two  boards  with  reference  to  the 
Kanawha  improvement.  To  remove  all  doubt  in  the  mat- 
ter, the  legislature,  in  section  nine  of  the  act  of  March  23, 

1  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  passim;  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1859-60, 
part  i.  doc.  no.  I ;  B.  H.  Wise,  Life  of  Henry  A.  Wise  (N.  Y.,  1899),. 
p.  221 ;  Kanawha  Valley  Star,  January  19,  1858. 


I98     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [438 

1860,  placed  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Kanawha 
board  $300,000  of  the  six  per  cent,  registered  stock  of 
the  commonwealth  to  be  used  by  them  for  the  improvement 
of  the  navigation  of  the  Kanawha  river.  The  Civil  War 
interrupted  whatever  improvements^  might  have  been  ef- 
fected on  the  Kanawha  river  under  this  act,  besides  remov- 
ing the  river  entirely  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Virginia.1 

Meanwhile  the  finances  of  the  company  had  been  going 
from  bad  to  worse.  By  1860  its  indebtedness  totaled  over 
$7,000,000.  With  this  heavy  handicap  and  with  its  whole 
property  under  a  lien  to  the  commonwealth,  which  had 
loaned  it  the  money  to  effect  its  improvements,  it  was  im- 
possible for  the  company  to  make  any  further  progress 
with  its  works.2  At  this  crisis  in  its  fortunes  Governor 
Wise,  impressed  with  the  threatening  aspect  of  national 
affairs  and  with  the  desirability  of  a  closer  union  between 
eastern  and  western  Virginia,  came  to  the  rescue  of  the 
company  in  his  annual  message  to  the  General  Assembly  at 
the  session  of  1859-60.  ITe  s?,:d : 

I  ask  for  an  immediate  appropriation  ....  for  a  permanent 
provision  in  the  future ;  that  the  capital  stock  of  the  company 
shall  be  increased  to  the  amount  of  80,000  shares,  of  which 
the  state  shall  take  60,000  in  payment  of  her  debt  and  liabili-  | 

ties  due  by  the  canal,  and  the  remaining  20,000  shall  be  sold, 
• 

1  Twentieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  736;  Twenty-third  An- 
nual Report,  ibid.,  pp.  335-336;  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report,  ibid.,  pp. 
663-665,  669,  716-720,  755-756,  784,  836-837.  The  J.  1R.  &  K.  Co.  was  I 
bitterly  opposed  to  the  formation  of  the  western  board  to  improve  the 
Kanawha  river,  considering  it  to  be  in  effect  "  a  proposition  to  abandon 
the  connection  of  the  tidewaters  of  Virginia  and  the  Ohio  river."  Ibid., 
p.  657.  Neither  party  to  the  controversy  realized  that  the  era  of  river 
improvement  by  state  or  corporate  agency  was  practically  ended,  and 
that  for  the  future  this  kind  of  improvement  must  be  left  to  the  initia- 
tive and  aid  of  the  national  government. 

Central   Water  Line  from   the  Ohio   River  to  the   Virginia  Cafes. 
P-  54- 


439]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  199 

if  practicable,  to  private  persons,  thus  converting  the  debt  and 
liability  of  the  state  into  the  stock  of  the  company.  This  wilt 
complete  the  canal  to  Covington.  .  .  .  The  most  important 
line  of  the  state  is  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal.  It 
should  not  be  left  where  it  is  any  longer.1 

Governor  Wise  was  a  powerful  political  figure  in  the 
state  and  his  recommendation  carried  weight.  The  legisla- 
ture responded  to  his  suggestion  by  passing  the  act  of  March 
23,  1860,  known  as  the  "  conversion  scheme  ".  This  act 
provided  that  the  capital  stock  of  the  company  should  be 
increased  to  $12,400,000,  in  shares  of  $100  each,  and  the 
Board  of  Public  Works  was  directed  to  subscribe  on  be- 
half of  the  state  for  74,000  shares.  Of  this  amount  72,000 
shares  "  shall  be  taken  in  full  satisfaction  of  the  debt  nowi 
due  from  said  company  to  the  state,  and  for  the  assump- 
tion by  the  state  of  the  debt  for  which  the  state  is  bound  as 
surety  of  the  said  company,  and  the  annuity  to  the  old  James 
River  Company."  For  the  residue  of  two  thousand  shares, 
the  bonds  for  the  aggregate  amount  of  $200,000  were  to 
be  delivered  to  the  company  to  be  applied  to  the  extinguish- 
ment of  its  floating  debt.  The  company  was  authorized 
to  'borrow  money,  at  a  rate  of  interest  not  exceeding  seven 
per  cent.,  for  the  purpose  of  completing  the  canal  to  Cov- 
ington. Section  nine  of  the  act  provided  that  $300,000  of 
six  per  cent,  registered  stock  of  the  commonwealth  should 
be  placed  under  the  control  of  the  Kanawha  Board  of  Dir- 
ectors of  the  company  for  improvement  of  the  navigation 
of  the  Kanawha  river  from  its  mouth  of  Loup  Creek 
shoals.  * 

The  company,  being  thus  relieved  of  its  indebtedness  to 
the  state  and  released  from  the  lien  on  its  property,  was 

1  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1859-60,  part  i,  doc.  no.  I,  p.  34. 
*  Va.  Acts,  1859-60,  pp.  113-18. 


200     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [440 

thereby  placed  in  a  much  more  favorable  position  than  it 
had  occupied  in  years,  and  it  was  thought  at  the  time  that  it 
would  be  enabled  to  borrow  sufficient  money  to  complete 
the  canal  to  'Covington.  This,  however,  proved  to  be  too 
fond  a  hope.  The  company  never  availed  itself  of  the 
authority  given  by  the  above  act  to  borrow  money  for  the 
purpose  of  completing  the  canal  to  Covington  and  of  carry- 
ing on  its  other  works,  owing  to  the  disturbed  conditions 
growing  out  of  the  Civil  War.1 

Upon  the  retirement  of  John  Y.  Mason  from  the  presi- 
dency of  the  company,  Thomas  H.  Ellis  had  been  elected 
his  successor  in  October,  1853,  and  continued  to  occupy 
this  position  until  February,  1867.  Ellis  displayed  great 
energy  in  the  beginning  of  his  administration  of  the  com- 
pany's affairs,  but  was  somewhat  visionary  and,  in  the  later 
years  of  his  presidency,  his  conduct  failing  to  meet  the  ap- 
proval of  the  stockholders,  his  term  of  office  came  to  an 
abrupt  and  involuntary  close.2 

In  1859  an  association  of  French  capitalists,  styled 
Messieurs  Bellot  des  Minieres,  Brothers  &  Company,  en- 
tered into  negotiation  with  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  with  a  view  to  the  purchase  of  the  company's 
works.  Their  representative,  Ernest  de  Bellot  des  Minieres, 
conducted  a  voluminous  correspondence  on  the  subject  and 
at  a  later  time  visited  Virginia  to  make  a  personal  investiga- 
tion of  the  matter.  He  stated  that  his  firm  held  large 
estates  in  western  Virginia,  amounting  to  some  300,000 
acres,  which  it  was  proposed  to  develop.  Conceiving  that 
the  value  of  this  land  would  be  enhanced  tremendously  if 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company's  canal  were  com- 
pleted on  an  enlarged  scale,  and  that  the  canal  itself  was  a 

1  Twenty-seventh  Annual  Report  f.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  13. 
1  Thirty-third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  707. 


44!]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  2OI 

worthy  enterprise,  the  French  company,  according  to  its 
representative,  contemplated  its  purchase  with  a  view  to 
completing  the  improvement  as  a  great  inland  waterway 
from  Richmond  to  the  Ohio.  This  firm  was  vouched  for 
by  important  persons  in  France,  by  the  French  consul  at 
Richmond,  and  by  C.  J.  Faulkner,  then  American  minister 
to  France.1  Being  thus  satisfied  of  the  reliability  of  the 
French  firm,  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  on 
July  25,  1860,  at  a  called  meeting  of  stockholders  which 
endorsed  the  proposition,  entered  into  a  provisional  agree- 
ment whereby  the  French  company  agreed  to  purchase  the 
works  of  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company,  and  to 
complete  the  canal  on  an  enlarged  plan  *  Governor  Letcher, 
in  a  message  to  the  Legislature  Jan.  7,  1861,  referred  to  the 
provisional  contract  entered  into  by  the  James  River  & 
Kanawha  Company  with  the  French  firm  for  the  sale  of 
its  entire  line  of  improvements,  with  all  its  franchises  and 
immunities,  including  the  commonwealth's  interest,  and  with 
stipulations  for  the  completion  of  the  entire  work.  In 
setting  forth  the  fact  that  the  Legislature's  approval  was 
necessary  to  give  validity  to  the  contract,  Governor  Letcher 
said :  "  The  completion  of  this  great  line  of  improvement  is 
an  object  of  first  importance  to  the  people  of  Virginia.  .  .  . 
When  completed  it  will  do  more  to  develop  the  vast  re- 
sources of  our  state  than  any  improvement  that  has  been 
projected."  He  recommended  the  whole  subject  to  the 
favorable  attention  of  the  Legislature.8  That  portion  of 
the  governor's  message  which  related  to  this  matter  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Roads  and  Internal  Navigation, 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  555-556,  759-761; 
also  Report  of  Committees  of  Roads  and  Internal  Navigation  of  Senate 
and  House  sitting  jointly,  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1861,  doc.  no.  31. 

*  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  761,  770. 

8  Journal  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861,  doc.  no.  i,  pp.  40-41. 


202     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [442 

with  instructions  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  incor- 
porating the  Virginia  Canal  Company  upon  the  basis  of 
the  provisional  contract  referred  to  above/  This  com- 
mittee reported  on  Feb.  19,  1861,  in  regard  to  the  ability 
of  the  French  firm  to  comply  with  their  contract  for  the 
completion  of  the  canal  in  an  enlarged  form,  and  resolved 
all  doubts  that  the  members  of  the  Assembly  might  have 
entertained  in  the  premises.* 

The  General  Assembly,  on  March  29,  1861,  passed  "  An 
act  to  incorporate  the  Virginia  Canal  Company,  and  to 
transfer  the  rights  and  franchises  of  the  James  Rliver  & 
Kanawha  Company  thereto ".  This  act  provided  for  the 
formation  of  a  new  company  to  be  styled  the  "  Virginia 
Canal  Company ",  with  a  capital  stock  of  not  less  than 
twenty,  nor  more  than  thirty-five,  millions  of  dollars,  in 
shares  of  $100  each;  to  which  should  be  transferred  all  the 
property  and  franchises  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  including  the 
state's  interest  therein,  upon  compliance  with  the  terms  of 
this  act.  The  new  company  was  required  to  complete  the 
improvement  from  Buchanan  to  the  Ohio  river  by  a  contin- 
uous water  line.  The  entire  work  was  to  be  completed 
within  ten  years,  and  as  an  evidence  of  good  faith  the  com- 
pany must  deposit  with  the  state  treasurer  one  million  dol- 
lars in  the  six  per  cent,  registered  stock  of  the  state,  to 
be  returned  as  the  work  progressed.  The  new  company 
should  be  fully  incorporated  when  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  were  satisfied  that  the  minimum  capital  of  $20,000,- 
ooo  was  raised.  It  was  further  provided  that  if  the  new 
company  failed  to  comply  with  its  undertaking  and  its 
charter  were  abrogated,  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  as  it  existed 
prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act,  should  be  restored  to  its 
former  rights  and  privileges  as  effectually  as  if  this  act  had 

1  Journal  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861,  p.  5. 

1  Journal  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861,  doc.  no.  31,  pp.  7-43. 


443]  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  ITS  ACTIVITIES  203 

never  been  passed,  and  that  the  state  should  have  the  same 
rights  and  privileges  as  heretofore.1 

Within  twenty  days  of  the  passage  of  this  act  Virginia 
had  seceded  from  the  Union  and  her  soil  was  to  be  the 
chief  battleground  of  the  long  and  bloody  Civil  War  that 
followed.  In  consideration  of  this  fact  the  General  As- 
sembly passed  an  act  on  Dec.  17,  1861,  extending  the  time 
for  the  organization  of  the  Virginia  Canal  Company  one 
year,  and  provisionally  two  years.  Owing  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  war  no  application  was  made  to  the  Legislature  for  a 
further  extension  of  the  time,  although  such  a  request  was 
made  by  the  French  firm.  Immediately  upon  the  close  of 
the  war  Mr.  Ernest  de  Bellot  des  Minieres  wrote  in  behalf 
of  his  firm,  claiming  their  rights  under  the  agreement  and 
expressing  their  readiness  to  comply  with  its  terms.  The 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  still  impressed  with  the  advantages  to  be 
derived  from  the  sale  of  their  property,  memorialized  the 
General  Assembly  on  Dec.  20,  1865,  requesting  that  body 
to  revive  the  act  of  March  29,  1861,  and  to  extend  for  one 
year  the  time  for  the  organization  of  the  new  company ;  and 
that  the  time  allowed  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  complete  their 
works  might  be  extended  ten  years  in  the  event  that  the 
sale  of  the  property  should  not  be  effected.2  In  response 
to  this  petition  the  Legislature,  by  the  acts  of  Feb.  3,  1866 
and  Feb.  21,  1866,  enacted  the  legislation  desired.' 

Immediately  upon  the  passage  of  the  act  of  Feb.  3,  1866, 
amending  the  act  of  incorporation  of  the  Virginia  Canal 
Company,  the  Virginia  Assembly  adopted  joint  resolutions 

1  Va.  Acts,  1861,  pp.  70-123.  The  Kanawha  Board  was  strongly  op- 
posed to  the  proposed  sale  of  the  line  to  the  French  company,  in  so  far 
as  it  involved  the  Kanawha  river,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  delay  the 
improvement  of  that  river  and  impose  prohibitory  tolls.  See  Twenty- 
sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  841. 

1  Docs.  H.  of  D.,  1865-66,  doc.  no.  12,  pp.  3-5. 

'  Va.  Acts,  1865-66,  pp.  93-145 ;  ibid.,  p.  219. 


204     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [444 

requesting  the  West  Virginia  legislature  to  concur  in  the 
same.  Thereupon  the  West  Virginia  legislature  passed  an 
act  conditionally  ratifying  the  Virginia  act  and  inserting 
certain  modifications  of  the  charter,  to  which  the  Virginia 
Assembly  assented  Feb.  28,  I866.1  The  charter,  as  thus 
amended,  was  accepted  by  the  French  firm.  Further  cor- 
respondence ensued  between  the  president  of  the  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.  and  Mr.  Ernest  de  Bellot  des  Minieres,  who  held  out 
great  hopes  of  what  his  company  was  prepared  to  do  in 
complying  with  its  contract.  But  it  soon  became  evident 
that  these  hopes  would  be  unrealized,  and  in  the  fall  of 
1866  all  expectation  that  the  French  firm  would  comply 
with  its  contract  was  abandoned.1 

1  Thirty-second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  244-5 ;  also,  Va* 
Acts,  1865-66,  pp.  218-19. 
1  Thirty-second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  245. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  UPON  THE  FORTUNES  OF 

THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY;  THE 

ATTEMPT  TO  ENLIST  FEDERAL  AID,  AND 

ITS  FAILURE 

(1861-1875) 

THE  Civil  War  was  disastrous  to  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  and  dealt  it  a  blow  from  which  it  never 
recovered.  The  revenues  of  the  company  'began  to  fall  off 
from  the  first  and  continued  to  decline  steadily  as  the  war 
progressed.  The  proclamation  of  President  Lincoln  de- 
claring a  blockade  of  the  Confederate  States  soon  became 
effectual  in  so  far  as  the  James  river  was  concerned;  and 
the  commerce  on  which  the  trade  of  the  dock,  and  to  a 
great  degree  that  of  the  canal,  depended,  being  thus  cut  off, 
traffic  was  interfered  with  and  the  revenues  diminished.1 

The  Code  of  Virginia  provided  that  in  time  of  war, 
invasion  or  insurrection,  the  tolls  collected  on  troops  should 
not  exceed  on  the  railroads  one-half,  and  on  other  improve- 
ments one-fourth,  the  rates  on  other  persons.  With  this 
provision  the  company  complied  and  afforded  the  Con- 
federate Government  every  facility  possible  for  the  move- 
ment of  troops  and  military  supplies.2  The  canal  remained 
open  during  the  first  years  of  the  war  and  was  of  great 
assistance  to  the  Confederacy.  Beginning  with  1862  the 
revenue  from  the  canal  was  insufficient  to  keep  it  in  a  good 

1  Report  Board  of  Public  Works,  1860-61,  p.  74. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  74-82. 

445]  205 


206     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [446 

state  of  repair,  but  as  it  was  growing  more  important  con- 
stantly for  purposes  of  transporting  military  supplies  the 
Confederate  Government  was  anxious  to  have  it  kept  in 
good  condition.  In  compliance  with  the  government's  re- 
quest the  General  Assembly  passed  the  Act  of  March  28, 
1862,  authorizing  the  issue  of  $200,000  of  the  registered 
stock  of  the  state,  under  the  direction  of  the  Board  of 
Public  Works,  to  enable  the  company  to  keep  open  the  navi- 
gation of  the  canal  from  Richmond  to  Buchanan.  Im- 
mediately after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  company  sent 
an  agent  to  hire  negroes  from  refugees  who  were  known  to 
have  brought  many  with  them  when  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac  fell  back  from  Manassas  early  in  March.  The 
president  of  the  company  passed  over  the  entire  line,  urging 
all  the  superintendents  and  foremen  to  energetic  efforts  to 
put  the  canal  in  the  best  possible  condition.1  The  Con- 
federate Government  rendered  the  company  every  assistance 
that  the  exigencies  of  the  military  situation  permitted.  It 
empowered  the  chief  engineer  of  the  company  to  impress 
farm  hands  and  teams  along  the  line  of  the  canal,  and 
allowed  the  company  to  purchase,  at  government  prices, 
carts,  wheelbarrows,  shovels,  picks,  and  other  implements 
from  stores  not  open  to  the  general  public.  At  a  later  date 
it  authorized  advertisement  to  be  made  calling  for  five 
hundred  hands  to  be  hired,  in  the  name  and  at  the  expense 
of  the  Confederate  Government,  for  the  purpose  of  work- 
ing on  the  canal  near  Lynchburg.  These  measures  did  not 
suffice,  however,  to  secure  the  full  force  of  labor  desired 
by  the  company,  which  at  no  time  had  a  sufficiently  large 
force  to  keep  the  canal  in  thorough  repair.  The  govern- 
ment organized  its  own  line  of  transportation,  having  pur- 
chased or  impressed  for  that  purpose  about  a  dozen  first 

1  Twenty-eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  54-57;  Va-  Acts,. 
1862,  pp.  73-75- 


447]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  207 

class  boats  which  had  previously  been  open  to  the  use  of 
the  public.  The  canal  was  of  great  service  in  many  ways. 
In  the  latter  part  of  1864  nearly  all  the  foremen  and 
mechanics  were  called  to  the  colors,  and  repairs  on  the  canal 
were  practically  suspended.1 

On  March  6,  1865,  a  force  of  cavalry  estimated  at  from 
four  to  eight  thousand  men,  under  the  command  of  General 
Sheridan,  entered  the  town  of  Scottsville  and  proceeded  im- 
mediately to  injure  and  destroy  the  works  of  the  company 
at  that  point.  Being  joined  the  following  day  by  another 
column  at  Tye  river,  they  spent  about  a  week  passing  up 
and  down  the  canal  for  a  distance  of  some  ninety  miles  and 
inflicting  all  the  damage  in  their  power  on  the  works  of  the 
line  to  within  thirty  miles  of  Richmond.  This  work  of 
destruction  was  an  eloquent  tribute  to  the  value  of  the 
canal  to  the  Confederate  Government  during  the  war.2 

In  the  conflagration  which  followed  the  evacuation  of 
Richmond  on  April  3,  1865,  the  general  office  and  the  toll 
office  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  were 
burned,  with  all  their  contents.  The  most  valuable  books 
and  papers  of  the  company  were  saved,  however,  thanks  to 
the  foresight  of  its  officials,  who  sent  them  up  the  canal  the 
night  before  the  fire.  But  it  was  impossible  to  remove 
everything,  and  much  that  was  of  interest  and  value  was 
lost  in  the  destruction  of  the  two  offices.  In  about  ten 
days  after  the  fire  those  documents  which  had  been  removed 
were  brought  back,  but  in  the  confusion  of  the  moment 
many  were  lost  or  stolen.3 

1  Twenty-eighth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  57-60;  also, 
Thirty-first  Report,  ibid.,  p.  189. 

»  Thirty-first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  189-193. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  177-199.  The  burning  of  the  company's  offices  renders  the 
task  of  writing  its  history  infinitely  more  difficult.  A  mass  of  illu- 
minating material,  which  might  otherwise  have  been  drawn  upon  by  the 
writer,  was  lost  beyond  recovery.  The  material  available,  apart  from 


208     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [448 

Everything  being  in  a  state  of  demoralization  upon  the 
occupation  of  Richmond  by  the  Union  forces,  nothing 
could  be  done  by  the  company  immediately  to  reopen  navi- 
gation on  the  canal.  Negotiations  were  entered  into  with 
the  United  States  military  authorities  in  command  at  Rich- 
mond and  an  agreement  was  reached,  with  the  approval  of 
the  War  Department,  whereby  the  government  was  to  fur- 
nish the  requisite  labor,  provisions,  tools,  materials  and 
boats,  to  repair  the  canal,  upon  condition  that  the  company 
should  charge  the  government  one-half  the  ordinary  tolls 
as  an  offset  against  these  advances  and  should  pay  the 
balance,  if  any,  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  repairs.1 

During  the  progress  of  the  war  that  portion  o£ 
the  company's  works  which  was  west  of  the  Allegha- 
nies  had  been  confiscated  by  the  West  Virginia  legis- 
lature and  had  passed  definitely  out  of  the  hands  of  the  com- 
pany. The  West  Virginia  legislature,  by  act  of  May  15, 
1862,  took  over  the  Kanawha  River  improvement  and  the 
Kanawha  Road.2  By  the  act  of  December  2,  1863,  it 
authorized  the  newly  apoointed  Kanawha  Board  to  borrow 
$50,000  for  improving  the  Kanawha  river,  on  pledge  of  the 
tolls  and  movable  property  under  their  control.3  By  act 

the  more  formal  sources,  is  greatly  restricted,  often  fragmentary,  and 
sometimes  baffling. 

In  the  fire  following  the  evacuation  of  Richmond,  the  damage  thereby 
inflicted  upon  the  city  is  thus  described  by  Ellis :  "  About  230  of  the 
best  business  houses  of  the  city  were  destroyed,  besides  the  county  court 
house,  two  railroad  depots,  several  tobacco  warehouses,  all  the  banks, 
the  state  armory,  and  one  church,  together  with  an  amount  of  property 
in  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  produce,  certificates  of  debt,  etc.,  esti- 
mated by  competent  persons  at  $30,000,000."  See  Ellis'  communication 
to  Richmond  Enquirer,  February  u,  1867. 

1  Thirty-first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  179-180. 

*  Laws  of  West  Virginia,  1862,  pp.  20-21. 

*  Ibid.,  1863,  pp.  151-152. 


THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  2og 

of  February  28,  1866,  it  transferred  the  interest  of  the 
state  in  all  turnpikes  and  bridges  to  the  several  counties  in 
which  they  lay; 1  and  by  the  acts  of  February  27  and 
February  28,  1867,  specifically  transferred  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Turnpike  to  the  counties  through  which  it 
passed.2  This  state  of  things,  which  was  part  and  parcel 
of  the  whole  process  by  which  Virginia  was  deprived  of 
a  third  of  her  territory,  obviously  involved  grave  questions 
of  constitutional  law,  besides  leaving  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  in  doubt  as  to  how  far  its  line  of  im- 
provement now  extended.  This  doubt  was  not  lessened  by 
the  fact  that  the  dismemberment  of  the  state  was  not  re- 
garded as  a  constitutional  act  by  her  people.3  The  conven- 
ient fiction  under  which  the  grand  old  commonwealth  was 
rent  asunder  was  too  transparent  to  deceive  the  people  of 
Virginia  at  the  time,  nor  has  it  ever  deceived  them  since. 

At  the  beginning  of  1867  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company,  shorn  of  its  works  and  hopelessly  in  debt,  was  at 
the  ebb  of  its  fortunes.  With  the  exception  of  the  En- 
quirer, the  Richmond  papers  vied  with  each  other  in  hold- 
ing it  up  to  public  ridicule.  An  editorial  in  the  Richmond 
Times  declared: 

The  canal  seems  to  be  gravitating  from  bad  to  worse  with 
constantly  increasing  rapidity.  .  .  .  Half  a  century  or  more 
of  thought,  labor,  and  distinguished  administrative  and  en- 

Pllbid.,  1866,  p.  115. 
1  Ibid.,  1867,  pp.  133,  169-170. 
8  Thirty-first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  186.    The  argument 
for  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  erecting  West  Virginia  into  a  sep- 
arate state  is  not  convincing,  and  would  carry  no  weight  with  the  people 
-of   any  state  today  in  the  event    that  a   disgruntled   minority  should! 
appeal  to  it.     Furthermore,  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  difference  in  prin- 
ciple involved  in  the  secession  of  a  section  of  a  commonwealth  and  in 
that  of  a  section  of  the  country  at  large.    Wherein  lies  the  force  of  the 
reasoning  that  it  was  right  in  one  case  and  wrong  in  the  other? 


2io     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [450 

gineering  ability  has  left  it  almost  in  the  articles  of  death.  .  .  . 
It  has  a  talent  for  sinking  into  a  state  of  hopeless  bankruptcy 
....  A  broken  down,  impoverished  concern  like  the  J.  R. 
&  K.  Co.  can  not  afford  to  maintain  this  army  of  well  paid 
officials.1 

The  Times  closed  with  a  suggestion  that  the  canal  be 
leased  before  it  devoured  the  state. 

The  Richmond  Whig  also  came  forward  in  an  editorial, 
in  which  it  said : 

The  canal  is  attracting  a  large  share  of  attention.  .  .  . 
The  heavy  expense  at  which  it  is  operated  and  which  threatens 
to  continue  has  frightened  the  whole  state  ....  while  the 
whole  affair,  when  its  pretensions  are  compared  with  its  re- 
sults, presents  an  almost  ludicrous  aspect  of  Chinese  or 
Mexican  grandeur.  .  .  .  The  great  object  in  which  we  are  all 
interested  is  the  completion  of  the  canal.  .  .  .  We  believe  that 
any  feasible  plan  for  its  completion  would  be  acceptable  to» 
the  whole  community.  ...  If  we  can  sell  advantageously  to 
any  responsible  company  ....  it  should  be  sold. 

The  editorial  declared  further  that  the  completion  of 
this  channel  of  communication  with  the  west  was  not  a. 
local  but  a  national  work,  and  that  it  was  a  matter  of  first 
importance  to  secure  the  cooperation  of  the  west  and  north- 
west with  a  view  to  its  completion  as  a  link  in  a  great  water- 
way from  east  to  west,  a  subject  much  discussed  at  the  time. 
It  criticised  the  president  of  the  company,  Thomas  H.  Ellis, 
as  being  inefficient,  and  asserted  that  the  canal  would  always 
be  a  heavy  charge  upon  the  state  unless  completed  as  a 
through  line  to  the  west. 

In  reply  to  the  criticisms  of  the  press,   President  Ellis 
published  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,. 

1  Richmond  Times,  February  2,  1867. 

2  Richmond  Whig  (semi- weekly  edition),  February  12,  1867. 


451]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  211 

taking  exception  to  the  statements  set  forth  in  the  news- 
papers and  defending  the  management  and  policy  of  the 
company.1  His  management  of  its  affairs  failed  to  stand 
an  investigation,  however,  and  his  resignation  followed. 
On  March  28,  1867,  Major  Charles  S.  Carrington  was 
elected  his  successor,  and  held  office  for  ten  years.2 

After  the  failure  of  the  effort  to  induce  foreign  capital- 
ists to  take  hold  of  the  enterprise  in  a  large  way  and  press 
it  forward  to  completion,  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Com- 
pany began,  in  1867,  to  direct  its  attention  to  enlisting  the 
aid  of  the  Federal  Government  in  the  project  as  a  national 
undertaking.  It  was  encouraged  to  do  this  by  the  fact  that 
at  about  this  time  there  had  begun  to  develop  beyond  the 
borders  of  the  state  a  considerable  interest  in  the  Virginia 
water  line  as  a  means  of  communication  with  the  west,  and 
it  appeared  that  strong  support  for  the  scheme  would  be 
forthcomng  from  the  states  of  the  west  and  northwest, 
which  were  demanding  enlarged  transportation  facilities 
to  the  seaboard.3  To  enlist  the  support  of  the  Federal 
Government  it  was  of  course  necessary  to  consider  the  im- 
provement in  its  widest  possible  scope;  and  the  company, 
in  pursuance  of  this  object,  stressed  the  idea  of  a  great 
central  water-way  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi. 
This  was,  after  all,  but  a  return  to  the  original  conception 
of  Washington,  Marshall,  and  the  fathers  of  the  enterprise. 
As  such  it  had  always  appealed  to  the  imagination  of  great- 
souled  Virginians,  and  this  goes  far  to  explain  why  for  so 
many  years  governors  and  statesmen  had  championed  its 
cause  when  its  practical  accomplishment  seemed  chimerical. 
Always  in  the  background  was  the  ennobling  conception  of 

1  Letters  from  the  President  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  (Richmond,  1867). 
J  Thirty -third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  320,  324. 
3  Forty-second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.   148,  223 ;   also, 
Thirty-fifth  Report,  ibid.,  pp.  418-19. 


212     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [452 

a  great  central  route  from  east  to  west.  The  James  River 
&  Kanawha  Company,  disorganized  by  the  war,  its  re- 
sources small  and  its  credit  gone,  seized  with  avidity  upon 
this  idea  as  the  last  possible  chance  to  retrieve  its  fortunes 
and  to  carry  throughout  to  triumphant  completion  that 
which  had  been  the  underlying  motive  of  the  enterprise  for 
nearly  three  generations. 

To  awaken  interest  in  its  scheme,  the  company  spent  con- 
siderable sums  in  publishing  pamphlets  of  an  informational 
nature,  and  put  forth  every  effort  to  rally  support  to  the 
project.  In  1868,  at  the  suggestion  of  certain  enterprising 
westerners,  it  issued  a  sort  of  prospectus  with  the  high- 
sounding  title  of  "  Central  Water  Line  from  the  Ohio  River 
to  the  Virginia  Capes  ".  This  was  a  part  of  the  movement 
being  fostered  at  the  time  to  arouse  public  interest  and  to 
bring  pressure  to  'bear  on  Congress  to  take  upon  itself  the 
further  prosecution  of  the  work.  For  several  years  it  ap- 
peared that  there  was  a  reasonable  prospect  that  the  move- 
ment would  succeed,  as  it  gained  considerable  impetus  and 
was  strongly  supported  by  some  of  the  western  states.  The 
company  represented  that  if  a  line  of  cheap  water  transpor- 
tation were  opened  directly  eastward,  from  the  centers  of 
western  production  to  the  center  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard, 
it  would  offer  all  the  advantages  of  directness,  expedition 
and  freedom  from  interruption  which  were  presented  by 
the  railroads,  besides  being  much  cheaper;  and  that  such  a 
line  would  be  afforded  by  completing  the  unfinished  portion 
of  the  Virginia  canal  over  the  eighty  miles  distance  be- 
tween the  terminus  at  Buchanan,  Virginia,  and  the  Green- 
brier  river,  in  Greenbrier  county,  West  Virginia.  It  as- 
serted that  this  would  connect  steamboat  navigation  on  the 
Kanawha  River  by  a  canal  two  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
miles  long,  whereas  the  Erie  Canal  connected  steamboat 
navigation  at  either  end  by  a  canal  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
three  miles  in  length.  It  further  represented  that : 


453]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  213 

The  Virginia  canal  owing  to  the  costliness  of  the  work,  did 
not  reach  completion  before  the  railroad  fever  had  taken  pos- 
session of  the  public;  and  it  has  had  to  wait  for  its  consum- 
mation to  that  returning  appreciation  which  is  now  again  felt, 
of  cheap  water  transportation.  It  offers  now  a  channel  of 
navigation  from  west  to  east  shorter  than  any  other,  cheaper 
than  any  other,  more  expeditious,  and  more  free  from  all 
obstructions  arising  from  climate  or  a  public  enemy,  than  all 
the  rest.  Its  only  rivals  in  capacity,  for  western  trade,  are 
the  Mississippi  and  Gulf  route  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Great 
Lake-Erie  Canal-and-St.  Lawrence-river  route  on  the  other. 
Both  of  these  boundary  routes  are  circuitous,  while  the  cen- 
tral one  is  direct.  It  offers  the  safest,  shortest,  most  central, 
cheapest,  most  constantly  open,  and  most  available  of  all  the 
channels  of  outlet  by  water  for  western  trade.  The  rapid  ex- 
tension and  expansion  of  inland  navigation  in  the  central 
basin  of  the  continent  is  producing  an  increase  in  the  quantity 
of  trade  demanding  outlet  to  the  seaboard,  far  exceeding  the 
outlet  of  all  existing  avenues  of  outlet  to  discharge,  and  im- 
peratively requiring  the  opening  of  a  new  line  of  direct  water 
navigation  to  the  seaboard  equal  in  capacity  to  the  Erie  Canal. 
The  extent  of  this  inland  navigation  is  tremendous.1 

In  1868  the  General  Assembly  of  Iowa  unanimously 
voted  a  memorial  to  Congress  in  behalf  of  the  Virginia 
central  water  line.  The  memorial  declared  this  to  be  a 
work  of  national  importance,  whose  benefits  would  be  shared 
directly  by  more  than  half  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
and  indirectly  by  all,  and  should  be  carried  forward  by  the 
whole  country  for  the  general  welfare.  Iowa's  represen- 
tatives in  both  branches  of  Congress  were  asked  to  use  their 
best  efforts  to  secure  the  early  completion  of  this  line  of 
communication  with  the  west  through  federal  aid.2 

1  Central  Water  Line  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Virginia  Capes,  pp. 
5-6,  37-38. 

a  Memorial  of  the  Twelfth  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa  to 
the  U.  S.  Congress  relative  to  water  communication  between  the  At- 
lantic and  the  Mississippi  (Des  Moines,  1868),  pp.  17-18. 


2I4     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [454 

The  national  commercial  convention  which  met  at  Louis- 
ville, Ky,  Oct.  12,  1869,  and  was  composed  of  representa- 
tives from  twenty-eight  states,  memorialized  Congress  in 
favor  of  the  project,  urging  "  The  completion  of  the  Cen- 
tral Water  Line  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  and  Kanawha 
rivers,  and  the  completion  of  the  James  River  &  Kanawha 
canal  on  a  scale  commensurate  with  the  great  objects  to 
•be  accomplished  by  it  "-1  The  commercial  convention  met 
the  following  year  at  Cincinnati  and  drew  up  another  mem- 
orial to  Congress,  setting  forth  the  inadequacy  of  the  trans- 
portation facilities  offered  by  the  railroads  and  the  high 
charges  thereon  for  freight,  and  demanding  that  the  prod- 
ducts  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  have  "  a  great,  central,  un- 
taxed  waterway  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  seas  ".2 

On  April  16,  1870,  the  Ohio  legislature  adopted  resolu- 
tions in  favor  of  aid  by  the  United  States  in  the  early  con- 
struction of  the  Central  Water  Line  on  an  enlarged  scale, 
on  the  ground  of  its  national  importance  and  especially  as 
involving  the  vital  interests  of  the  western  states.  The 
governor  of  the  state  was  directed  to  forward  copies  of 
these  resolutions  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  with 
the  request  that  he  lay  the  same  before  Congress,  and  to  the 
governors  of  the  several  states  with  the  request  that  they 
lay  the  same  before  their  respective  legislatures.  Ohio's 
representatives  in  Congress  were  requested  "  to  use  their 
best  endeavors  to  secure  the  passage  of  such  measures  as  will 
conduce  to  the  early  construction  of  this  work."  8 

On  May  14,  1870,  the  governor  of  Iowa  transmitted  a 
second  memorial  of  the  Iowa  Legislature  to  Congress,  re- 
presenting that : 

1  Memorial  of  Louisville  and  Cincinnati  Conventions  to  Congress  on 
the  opening  of  a  complete  system  of  water  communications  between  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Atlantic  (Richmond,  1873),  p.  3. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  5- 

8  4ist  Congress,  2  sess.,  Senate  Mis.  Docs.,  doc.  no.  128,  p.  i. 


45 5]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  215 

The  question  of  uninterrupted  water  communication  between 
the  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard  has  become 
one  of  all-absorbing  interest  to  the  people  of  the  whole 
country,  and  more  especially  the  food-producing  states  of  the 
Northwest.  It  has  been  considered  by  the  people  met  in  local, 
county,  state,  and  national  conventions;  by  boards  of  trade 
and  other  commercial  associations ;  by  city  councils  and  boards 
of  supervisors  of  cities  and  counties;  by  the  legislatures  and 
governors  of  states,  and  through  the  public  press ;  and  without 
exception,  by  resolution,  memorial,  message  and  public  discus- 
sion, all  have  united  in  recognizing  its  importance  and  im- 
perative necessity,  and  urging  the  attention  of  Congress  and 
the  country  in  relation  thereo.1 

This  memorial  of  the  Iowa  General  Assembly  to  Con- 
gress, while  not  directed  solely  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Central  Water  Line,  embraced  it  within  its  purview  and 
serves  to  indicate  how  seriously  the  west  was  disposed  to 
take  itself  in  regard  to  the  question  of  cheap  and  abundant 
transportation  facilities  to  the  seabord  in  the  decade  follow- 
ing the  Civil  War.  Its  bountiful  harvests  of  grain,  in- 
creased many  times  by  the  rapidity  of  its  settlement  and  by 
the  extended  use  of  improved  farming  machinery  and  com- 
mercial fertilizers,  taxed  to  the  utmost  such  transportation 
facilities  as  already  existed  and  cried  loudly  for  increased 
facilities.  Furthermore,  the  demand  of  the  west  was  for 
cheap  transportation  for  its  'bulky  produce  and  it  was  con- 
ceived that  improved  waterways  would  meet  this  demand, 
especially  in  view  of  what  was  thought  to  be  extortion  on 
the  part  of  the  railroads.  Such  conditions  formed  the  back- 
ground of  the  attempt  of  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Com- 
pany to  enlist  federal  aid  for  its  enterprise,  and  for  the 
moment  seemed  to  promise  a  fair  chance  of  success.  At 
any  rate  it  was  deemed  worth  a  trial,  even  though  somewhat 
of  the  nature  of  a  drowning  man  grasping  at  a  straw. 

1  4ist  Cong.,  2  sess.,  H.  of  R.,  mis.  doc.  no.  136,  p.  I. 


2i6     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [456 

On  Feb.  8,  1870,  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company 
presented  a  memorial  to  the  Virginia  legislature  relative  to 
the  aid  sought  from  the  federal  government  in  behalf  of  the 
enterprise,  representing  that  it  was  necessary  to  seek  out- 
side assistance  in  completing  its  work.  The  memorial  de- 
clared that  the  company  was  convinced  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  states  of  the  Union  were  interested  in  the  completion 
of  the  water  line  and  requested  the  General  Assembly  then 
in  session  to  memorialize  Congress  on  the  subject.  It 
further  recommended  that  the  state  should  yield  up  to  the 
federal  government  all  her  interest  as  a  stockholder  of  the 
company  and  turn  the  work  over  to  the  government  to  be 
completed  as  a  national  enterprise  in  such  ways  as  Congress 
might  prescribe,  and  when  completed,  to  be  thrown  open 
as  a  great  public  highway,  toll  free,  for  the  general  benefit 
of  the  country.1  The  company  made  a  similar  request  of 
the  West  Virginia  legislature.  In  compliance  with  these 
requests  the  legislatures  of  the  two  states  memorialized  Con- 
gress in  behalf  of  the  project,  the  Virginia  memorial  being 
adopted  March  u,  1870;  and  that  of  West  Virginia,  Feb. 
23,  1870.  These  memorials,  which  were  identical  in  sub- 
stance, set  forth  that  there  existed  a  necessity  for  a  shorter, 
cheaper  and  better  channel  of  communication  between  the 
western  states  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard ;  that  such  a  channel 
could  be  obtained  through  the  Virginias  by  connecting  the 
waters  of  the  James,  New,  and  Kanawha  rivers;  that  its 
benefits  would  be  national  and  would  be  enjoyed  by  a; 
majority  of  the  states  of  the  Union;  that  in  case  of  hostile 
invasion  it  would  be  invaluable  to  the  government  as  an  in- 
terior means  of  communication;  and  that  the  states  of  Vir- 
ginia and  West  Virginia,  through  which  it  passed,  were 
unable  to  complete  it  and  felt  justified,  in  view  of  the  general 
benefits  it  would  confer  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States 

1  Thirty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  473-74,  482-89,  475-81. 


457]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  217 

and  the  peculiar  benefits  to  be  derived  from  it  by  the  gov- 
ernment, in  soliciting  federal  aid  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
project.  The  memorial  declared  that  the  necessity  for  a 
cheaper  and  shorter  channel  of  communication  between  the 
west  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard  was  shown  by  the  enormous 
charges  upon  the  transportation  of  grain  from  the  north- 
western states  to  New  York.  It  brought  out  the  fact  that 
the  charges  on  wheat  from  the  Mississippi  to  New  York  by 
railroad,  when  the  canals  were  closed,  averaged  72  cts  per 
bushel,  and  that  even  by  water  from  Chicago  the  charges 
sometimes  amounted  to  56  cts  per  bushel,  or  about  62  cts 
from  the  Mississippi  river,  so  that  the  western  farmers  had 
to  pay  about  one  half  of  their  crops  to  get  the  other  half 
to  market;  and  that  the  effect  of  the  high  price  of  trans- 
portation was  to  depress  the  agricultural  interests  of  the 
states  and  territories  west  of  the  Mississippi,  to  limit  their 
production  for  exportation,  and  to  discourage  immigration. 
The  memorial  closed  by  asserting  that  a  sufficiently  cheap 
transit  could  be  obtained  only  by  water  and  by  opening  a 
communication  from  the  Mississippi  by  way  of  the  Ohio 
river  and  the  Virginia  water  line  to  the  Virginia  capes.1 

The  far-reaching  nature  of  the  movement  in  behalf  of  the 
Central  Water  Line  is  seen  in  the  enthusiasm  it  aroused  in 
Kansas.  Governor  James  M.  Harvey,  of  that  state,  in  a 
message  to  the  legislature,  urged  its  importance  at  length. 
After  discussing  the  cheapness  of  water  transportation  as 
compared  with  railroads,  and  pointing  out  the  circuitous 
nature  of  existing  water  routes  to  the  Atlantic,  he  went  on 
to  say : 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  national  legislature  to  see  that  a  route  is 
provided  from  the  interior  to  the  sea  which  will  not  tax  the 
labor  of  the  working  man  seventy-five  per  cent  simply  tc* 

1  Thirty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  475-76,  481. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [458 

furnish  transportation  for  the  resultant  product.  In  view  of 
these  things  and  others  which  furnish  reasons  equally  cogent, 
I  deem  it  eminently  fit  and  proper  that  you  should  memorial- 
ize Congress  asking  that,  as  a  national  enterprise,  the  James 
River  &  Kanawha  Canal  be  enlarged  and  completed  in  such 
a  way  as  to  connect  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Ohio  and 
James  rivers,  thus  affording  means  of  transit  by  water  from 
the  navigable  streams  of  the  interior  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
without  the  necessity  of  transshipment,  and  without  risk  from 
climate,  tempest,  or  alien  enemy,  and  at  a  cost  for  transporta- 
tion vastly  less  than  that  which  is  entailed  upon  us  by 
the  insufficiency  of  the  present  lines  of  communication.  Our 
geographical  location  should  interest  us  in  prosecution  of  this 
work,  for  when  it  is  completed  barges  may  be  loaded  at 
Leavenworth,  Atchison,  Wyandotte,  or  any  point  on  the 
Missouri  River,  or  upon  the  Kansas  River  if  some  improve- 
ments be  made  for  its  navigation,  and  the  barges  thus 
freighted  could  be  towed  by  steam  to  the  head  of  navigation 
on  the  Kanawha  River,  thence  passed  through  the  canal  as 
canal-boats  to  tidewater  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  whence  access 
is  easy  to  the  best  markets,  both  foreign  and  domestic.  The 
barges  could  be  returned  to  the  west  freighted  with  such  com- 
modities as  may  be  in  demand  here.1 

Upon  this  recommendation  of  the  governor,  the  Kansas 
legislature  on  Jan.  17,  1873,  adopted  a  memorial  to  Con- 
gress along  the  lines  of  his  message  and  it  was  duly  pre- 
sented to  that  body  on  Jan.  27,  1873,  and  supported  by  the 
Kansas  delegation.2 

President  Grant,  in  his  second  annual  message  to  Con- 
gress, Dec.  5,  1870,  says,  "  The  whole  nation  is  interested 
in  securing  cheap  transportation  from  the  agricultural  states 
of  the  West  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard  ".3  In  his  fourth 

1  Memorial  of  Kansas  Legislature,  426.  Cong.,  3  sess.,  H.  of  R.,  mis. 
doc.  no.  70,  pp.  1-2. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  2-5. 
8  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  vi,  p.  4060. 


459]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  219 

annual  message,  Dec.  2,  1872,  he  returned  to  the  subject  and 
called  attention  to  "  the  various  enterprises  for  the  more 
certain  and  cheaper  transportation  of  the  constantly  in- 
creasing surplus  of  western  and  southern  products  to  the 
Atlantic  seaboard  " ;  and  suggested  that  Congress  take  im- 
mediate steps  to  gain  all  available  information  to  insure 
equable  and  just  legislation  in  the  premises.  Among  the 
three  routes  specifically  mentioned  in  this  connection  was 
the  James  River  Canal  to  the  Ohio.1 

The  various  memorials  to  Congress  in  behalf  of  the 
Central  Water  Line,  being  thus  in  harmony  with  a  growing 
and  insistent  demand  for  cheap  transportation  to  the  sea- 
board, awakened  considerable  interest  in  that  body  and  were 
given  more  or  less  serious  consideration  for  several  years, 
beginning  about  1870.  The  subject  was  introduced  into 
Congress  on  March  31,  1870,  by  Waitman  T.  Willey, 
senator  from  West  Virginia,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  as 
follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Commerce  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  causing  a  survey  and  examination,  under  the 
war  department,  of  the  line  of  water  communication  between 
the  tidewater  on  the  James  river  and  the  Ohio  river  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Great  Kanawha,  by  way  of  the  James  and  Kan-- 
awha  rivers  and  their  tributaries,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  the 
practicability  and  utility  of  such  water  communication  as  may 
be  required  for  the  transportation  of  military  supplies  in  time 
of  war,  and  to  meet  the  commercial  necessities  of  the  valley 
of  the  Mississippi  river,  with  liberty  to  report  by  bill  or  other- 
wise, as  they  deem  best.2 

An  identical  resolution  was  introduced  into  the  House  the 
same  day  by  Job  E.  Stevenson,  representative  from  Ohio, 
and  both  resolutions  were  unanimously  agreed  to.3  Con- 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  4050-4051. 

3  Congressional  Globe,  4ist  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1869-70,  part  3,  p.  2303. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  41  st  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1869-70,  part  3,  p.  2329. 


220     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY     [460 

gress  passed  a  law  July  7,  1870,  authorizing  a  survey  of 
the  central  water  route.1  The  object  of  this  survey  was  to 
obtain  further  information  as  to  the  practicability  and  ex- 
pense of  opening  a  line  of  continuous  navigation  between 
Richmond  and  the  Ohio.  The  survey  was  duly  made  by 
Major  W.  P.  Craighill,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the 
U.  S.  Army,  and  transmitted  to  Gen.  A.  A.  Humphries, 
Chief  of  Engineers,  who  transmitted  it  to  Congress 
through  Secretary  of  War  Belknap,  where  it  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Commerce  Feb.  n,  i87i.2 

This  report  of  Major  Craighill  calls  attention  to  the  de- 
sirability of  the  Central  Water  Line  as  a  means  of  afford- 
ing cheap  and  certain  communication  between  the  great  pro- 
ducing region  of  the  west  and  the  Atlantic  coast,  and  its 
superiority  to  the  northern  and  southern  water  routes  then 
existing.  He  submitted  a  survey  of  the  proposed  line  made 
•by  himself  and  his  assistants,  which  involved  an  all-water 
route  from  the  Ohio  to  tidewater  at  Richmond.  Accord- 
ing to  this  survey  the  Alleghanies  were  to  be  crossed  at  the 
summit  level  by  a  tunnel,  emerging  into  the  valley  of 
Howard's  Creek,  and  descending  thence  into  the  Greenbrier 
by  three  locks  of  ten  feet  lift  each.  He  declared  the  scheme 
within  the  field  of  practical  engineering,  and  estimated  that 
an  all-water  line,  with  an  enlarged  canal  adapted  to  vessels  of 
several  hundred  tons  burden,  from  Richmond  to  the  Ohio, 
would  cost  $47,622, 262. 3 

The  Committee  on  Commerce,  to  whom  the  report  of 
Major  Craighill  was  referred,  made  an  elaborate  report  to 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  third  session  of  the 
forty-first  Congress,  and  endorsed  the  Central  Water  Line 
as  a  work  of  great  national  importance  "  entitled  to  receive 

1  Ibid.,  3  sess.,  H.  of  R.,  ex.  doc.  no.  no,  p.  2. 
» Ibid.,  p.  i. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  3-5. 


46i]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  221 

such  aid  from  the  national  government  as  will  secure  its 
completion  at  the  earliest  possible  period  "-1  The  National 
Board  of  Trade  memorialized  Congress  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
ject at  about  this  time,  and,  indeed,  such  action  became  quite 
usual  for  commercial  bodies,  boards  of  trade,  and  chambers 
of  commerce.2 

At  the  forty-second  session  of  Congress  a  bill  for  the 
completion  of  the  canal  along  the  route  of  the  government 
survey  was  presented  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Commerce,  but  in  the  opinion  of  leading  friends  of  the  pro- 
ject it  was  deemed  an  unfavorable  time  to  press  it,  and  it 
rested  peacefully  in  the  pigeon  holes  of  the  committee, 
awaiting  a  more  favorable  chance  of  passage.3  Applica- 
tion was  made  to  Congress,  however,  for  a  further  appro- 
priation for  a  more  detailed  survey  of  the  route,  with 
special  reference  to  that  portion  of  the  line  which  lay  west 
of  the  Alleghanies;  and  this  appropriation  was  granted  and 
the  survey  duly  made  by  Major  Craighill  in  1872.*  .  i 

That  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  might  have 
legislative  sanction  for  the  possible  sale  or  transfer  of  its 
property  and  franchises  in  the  event  a  favorable  opportunity 
presented  itself,  it  memorialized  the  Virginia  General  As- 
sembly on  the  subject  Dec.  4,  1871.  In  response  to  this 
petition  the  Assembly  appointed  commissioners,  "  Who  to- 
gether with  such  commissioners  as  may  be  appointed  by  the 
state  of  West  Virginia,  shall  ....  be  empowered  to  invite 
and  receive  proposals  for  the  completion  of  the  canal  ".*  1 

On  Feb.  13,  1873,  the  Committee  on  Commerce  of  the 

1  4ist  Cong.,  3  sess.,  H.  of  R.,  ex.  doc.  no.  no,  p.  96. 
s  Ibid.,  p.  101 ;  also,  Thirty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  451. 
3  Thirty-eighth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  535, 
*  Ibid. 

5  Thirty-eighth  Annual  Report  f.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  551 ;  Va.  Acts,  1871- 
72,  pp.  59-61. 


222     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [462 

House  of  Representatives,  made  a  further  report  on  the 
Central  Water  Line.  The  report  set  forth  the  now  familiar 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  project,  but  went  more  specifically 
than  heretofore  into  the  nature  of  the  route  of  the  pro- 
posed water-way,  as  follows : 

The  line  of  navigation  on  the  proposed  route  will  consist  of 
the  Ohio  river,  from  its  mouth  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha, 
at  Point  Pleasant,  728  miles;  the  Kanawha,  New,  and  Green- 
brier  rivers,  208  miles;  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Canal 
from  Greenbrier  river  to  Richmond,  272  miles;  and  James 
river  to  Hampton  Roads,  125  miles;  making  a  total  distance 
of  1,333  miles  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  to  Hampton  roads. 
To  perfect  this  route  it  is  proposed  to  improve  the  Kanawha 
river  from  its  mouth,  85  miles  to  Lyken's  shoals,  for  sluice 
navigation;  thence  to  improve  that  river  and  the  New  and 
Greenbrier  rivers,  by  locks  and  dams,  for  steamboat  naviga- 
tion, to  the  mouth  of  Howard's  creek;  and  thence  to  cut  a 
canal  from  Howard's  creek  to  Buchanan,  76  miles;  and  to 
enlarge  to  the  same  dimensions  the  canal  already  made  from 
Buchanan  to  Richmond,  196  miles.  The  total  length  of  im- 
proved river  and  canal  navigation  will  be  480  miles,  of  which 
254  miles  will  be  river  and  slack-water  navigation.  Present 
estimates  contemplate  a  canal  adapted  to  boats  carrying  280* 
tons  moved  in  fleets  by  steam  tugs.1 

The  Committee  returned  with  this  report  the  bill  for  the 
completion  of  the  Central  Water  Line,  which  had  been  pre- 
viously referred  to  it.  No  action  was  taken  on  the  bill  at 
this  time,  however.2 

1  Report  of  Committee  on  Commerce,  H.  of  R.,  Feb.  13,  1873  (Gibson 
Brothers,  Washington,  1873),  PP-  3-J5-  Distance  from  the  Mississippi 
to  New  York  by  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  the  Lakes,  and  Erie 
Canal,  was  1,919  miles ;  by  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin  improvement  and 
Lakes,  1,560  miles;  by  the  most  direct  railroad  route  to  Chicago,  and 
thence  by  the  Lakes,  1,731  miles;  by  the  Ohio  river,  Wabash  Canal, 
Lakes  and  Erie  Canal,  1,818  miles;  by  the  Va.  Central  Line,  shortest 
route  to  Atlantic,  1,333  miles.  Ibid.,  p.  7. 

3  Thirty-ninth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  574. 


463]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  22$ 

Meanwhile  the  Senate  was  displaying  considerable 
activity  in  the  matter.  In  1873  it  appointed  a  "  Select 
Committee  on  Transportation  Routes  to  the  Seaboard", 
which  underwent  some  changes  in  its  membership,  but  on 
Feb.  24,  1874,  was  composed  of  the  following:  William 
Windom,  chairman,  John  Sherman,  Roscoe  Conkling,  J. 
Rodman  West,  Simon  B.  Conover,  John  H.  Mitchell,  Thos. 
M.  Norwood,  Henry  Gassaway  Davis,  and  John  W.  John- 
ston. The  committee  visited  various  parts  of  the  country 
and  collected  a  mass  of  material,  and  submitted  a  volumin- 
ous report  to  the  Senate  on  April  4,  I874.1  In  October, 
1873,  Senators  Windom,  Sherman,  Conkling,  Conover, 
Norwood,  and  Davis,  as  members  of  the  committee,  visited 
Richmond  to  hear  such  evidence  as  might  be  offered  in  con- 
nection with  the  Central  Water  Line  and  to  inspect  the  line 
as  far  as  practicable.  After  inspecting  the  company's 
works  in  and  near  Richmond,  and  hearing  all  the  testimony 
offered,  they  proceeded  to  Clifton  Forge,  where  they  again 
held  a  meeting  to  hear  testimony;  and  thence  over  the  line 
to  Charleston,  W.  Va.,  where  they  again  sat  to  hear  testi- 
mony.2 That  portion  of  the  report  of  the  Windom  Select 
Committee  to  the  Senate  which  relates  to  the  Central  Water 
Line  estimated  the  cost  of  this  enterprise,  on  the  large  scale 
proposed  by  the  engineers,  to  be  about  $55,000,000;  and  the 
time  required  to  complete  the  work  at  from  four  to  six 
years.  The  report  was  favorable  to  the  project  and  urged 
that  it  "  would  form  a  connection  between  tidewater  at 
Richmond  and  16,000  miles  of  inland  navigation  by  the 
Kanawha  and  Ohio  rivers,  and  open  a  cheap  and  valuable 
channel  of  transport  for  the  cereal  products  of  the  west."  * 

1  Preliminary  Report,  Inland   Waterways   Commission,   1908   (Wash- 
ington, Government  Printing  Office,  1908),  pp.  582-96. 
1  Thirty-ninth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  p.  574. 

8  43rd  Cong.,  I  sess.,  Senate  Report  307,  part  I,  pp.  71-243;  see  also, 
Appendix,  ibid.,  pp.  2-13. 


224     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [464 

Under  an  order  of  the  War  Department,  Jan.  27,1874, 
a  board  of  engineers,  consisting  of  J.  G.  Barnard,  B.  H. 
Latrobe,  Wm.  P.  Craighill,  Q.  A.  Gillmore,  and  G.  Weitzel, 
was  convened  with  instructions  to  report  on  all  questions 
of  practicability,  plan,  and  probable  cost  of  a  water  com- 
munication to  the  Ohio  river  by  way  of  the  James  and  Kan- 
awha  rivers,  together  with  the  probable  time  of  its  comple- 
tion and  cost  of  maintenance  when  completed,  in  order  to 
place  all  these  matters  beyond  doubt  in  the  public  mind.1* 
This  board  met  and  organized  at  the  office  of  the  J.  R.  &  K. 
Co.  in  Richmond,  Feb.  5,  1874.  They  went  over  the  line 
as  far  as  Charleston,  W.  Va.,  examining  the  location  of  the 
proposed  route  as  they  proceeded,  and  duly  brought  in 
their  report.  They  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that 
it  was  "  entirely  practicable  to  connect  the  waters  of  the 
James  and  the  Ohio  rivers  by  a  water  navigation  seven 
feet  in  depth' ' ,  and  that  there  was  a  sufficient  water  supply 
at  the  summit  level.  They  further  agreed  that  the  cost 
would  be  within  $60,000,000,  possibly  not  over  $50,000,000, 
and  that  it  could  be  completed  within  six  years.  As  to  the 
benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  work  when  completed,  they 
adopted  a  resolution  unanimously  declaring  that  the  route 
presented  extraordinary  claims  as  a  measure  of  relief  to 
the  population  of  the  western  states  in  furnishing  them  for 
their  bulky  products  cheap  transportation  to  market,  and  as 
a  stimulus  to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  by  develop- 
ing immense  mineral  resources,  hitherto  neglected.2  , 

The  favorable  investigations  and  reports  of  engineers  of 
the  War  Department  and  of  congressional  committees  in 
the  House  and  Senate,  led  to  an  undue  confidence  in  the 
officials  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  that  the  Central  Water  Line 
would  be  happily  consummated  after  all  the  weary  years 

1  43rd  Cong.,  I  sess,,  H.  of  R.,  ex.  doc.  no.  219,  p.  I. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  2-7. 


465]  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR  22$ 

of  waiting.  So  certain  was  Major  Carrington,  the  presi- 
dent of  the  company,  of  the  favorable  impression  on 
Congress,  that  in  his  annual  report,  Nov.,  1874,  he  said, 
"  We  may  look  forward  hopefully  to  the  great  work  being1 
undertaken  by  the  government  at  an  early  day."  r  But  his 
optimism  was  not  well  founded,  for  had  there  been  nothing 
else  to  defeat  its  completion  the  panic  of  1873  would  have 
sufficed  to  cause  the  federal  government  to  withhold  its  aid. 
It  had,  in  fact,  never  had  but  the  ghost  of  a  chance  at  the 
hands  of  Congress,  though  at  one  time  it  did  appear  as  if 
something  might  be  done  for  it  by  that  'body.  In  his 
annual  report  to  the  stockholders  in  1876,  President  Car- 
rington confessed  that  all  hope  of  federal  aid  had  vanished.5* 
The  struggle  for  federal  aid  ceased  from  this  time  forth. 
It  had  been  a  manful  fight  to  save  the  enterprise  from  the 
ruin  now  facing  it — another  of  that  long  series  of  delusive 
expectations  which  had  ever  characterized  the  history  of  the 
project,  a  hope  deferred  like  many  another,  ever  vanishing1 
yet  ever  recurring.  Never  was  an  enterprise  more  fondly 
cherished  than  the  James  River  &  Kanawha  Company,  and 
to  the  last  its  friends,  with  a  sublime  stubbornness,  refused 
to  see  that  it  was  doomed  to  failure.  After  each  heavy 
blow  more  staggering  than  the  last,  they  rallied  their  flag- 
ging energies  for  a  new  effort,  nor  contemplated  the  idea  of 
defeat  until  it  came. 

lFortieth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  614. 

a  Forty-second  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  108. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL;  ITS  SALE  AND 
ABANDONMENT 

(1875-1880) 

ABOUT  the  year  1875  the  affairs  of  the  James  River 
&  Kanawha  Company  were  in  much  better  condition  than 
they  had  been  for  several  years.  With  the  exception  of  the 
comparatively  small  sum  of  $67,589.27,  the  floating  debt 
had  been  paid  off  or  funded  in  first  mortgage  bonds,  which 
were  selling  at  65,  a  decided  advance.  The  credit  of  the 
company  had  'been  restored  and  its  current  debt  was  small ; 
and  the  expenses  of  the  fiscal  year  closing  Nov.,  1875, 
showed  a  surplus  revenue,  exclusive  of  interest,  above  all 
repairs,  of  $53>727-9°-1 

On  March  29,  1875,  the  General  Assembly  passed  a  bill 
authorizing  the  company  to  mortgage  all  its  property  and 
franchises  to  secure  a  loan  not  exceeding  $750,000,  and 
stipulating  that  the  proceeds  of  the  loan  were  to  be  expended 
exclusively  in  payment  of  the  company's  subscription  to  the 
capital  stock  of  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway 
Company  and  in  the  improvement  of  the  canal  from  Rich- 
mond to  Buchanan.  The  bill  further  authorized  the  city  of 
Richmond  to  guarantee  the  bonds  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to 
the  amount  of  the  company's  subscription  to  the  Buchanan 
&  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Co.,  if  three-fourths  of  the  quali- 
fied voters  of  the  city  favored  it.2 

1  Forty-second  Annual  Report  L  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  152. 

3  Va.  Ads,  1874-75,  PP-  376-77. 

226  [466 


467]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  227 

In  Feb.,  1876,  there  was  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the 
stockholders  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  lasting  four  days,  at 
which  the  question  of  extending  the  line  by  rail  or  canal 
to  Clifton  Forge  was  fully  discussed.1  The  revenues  de- 
rived from  that  portion  of  the  canal  between  Lynchburg 
and  Buchanan  had  never  been  equal  to  the  expenses  in- 
curred for  operating  and  repairing  it.  Following  the 
freshet  of  1870  and  the  heavy  expenses  it  entailed,  it  had 
become  increasingly  evident  that  the  canal,  especially  the 
Lynchburg-Buchanan  division,  could  not  be  made  self-sus- 
taining without  a  connection  with  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio 
Railway  at  Clifton  Forge,  especially  as  that  railway  was 
now  beginning  to  tap  the  rich  coal  fields  of  West  Virginia. 
Under  these  conditions  the  friends  of  the  canal,  and  more 
especially  those  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  the  James 
river  valley,  had  begun  to  look  to  a  cheap,  low-grade  rail- 
road, under  the  control  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  from 
Buchanan  to  Clifton  Forge,  as  the  only  promising  scheme 
to  bring  about  local  development  and  to  feed  and  preserve 
the  existing  canal.  It  was  thought  that  this  would,  in  a 
way,  give  the  long  desired  through  connection  with  the 
west  and  would  retrieve  the  accumulating  disasters  of  the 
canal  by  tremendously  increasing  its  tonnage.2  As  matters 
then  stood,  the  tonnage  basin  of  the  canal  was  greatly  cir- 
cumscribed by  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  and  the  Orange  & 
Alexandria  railroads  on  the  north  side  of  James  river  and 
by  the  Richmond  &  Danville  and  the  Atlantic,  Mississippi 
&  Ohio  railroads  on  the  south  side.  These  railroads  com- 
peted for  local  freights  with  the  canal  along  almost  its 
entire  length ;  and,  through  their  connection  with  each  other, 

1  Forty- first  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  79,  145-52. 

a  Forty-fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  6-  K.  Co.,  pp.  408-9.  The  dis- 
tance from  Buchanan  to  Clifton  Forge  was  thirty-two  miles.  It  was  an 
easy  grade,  and  a  very  desirable  connection. 


22g     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [468 

competed  for  through  freights  between  Richmond  and 
Lynchburg.  Hence  the  canal  faced  ruin  unless  something 
could  be  done  to  increase  its  tonnage.  The  proposed  Buch- 
anan &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  was  the  last  frantic  effort  of 
the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  save  itself  from  impending  disaster. 
It  was  thought  at  the  time  that  the  city  of  Richmond  would 
be  sufficiently  interested  in  the  preservation  and  prosperity 
of  the  canal  and  in  the  development  of  the  James  River 
valley  as  a  commercial  tributary  to  make  common  cause 
with  the  state  and  the  bondholders  in  speedily  completing 
the  desired  connection  with  Clifton  Forge,  especially  as  the 
amount  of  money  required  to  form  the  connection  was  not 
large.1 

Influenced  by  these  considerations  the  company  secured 
from  the  Legislature  the  passage  of  the  acts  required  for 
the  launching  of  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway. 
On  March,  27,  1876,  the  General  Assembly  passed  an  act 
to  incorporate  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Com- 
pany, and  to  enable  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  subscribe  to  its 
capital  stock.  The  bill  provided  that  the  capital  stock  of  the 
Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Company  was  to  be 
not  less  than  $400,000,  nor  more  than  $700,000,  in  shares 
of  $100  each.  The  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  was  authorized  to  sub- 
scribe $400,000  to  the  capital  stock  of  the  new  company 
and  to  execute  a  mortgage  on  its  property  to  secure  the 
$400,000  of  bonds  to  be  issued  under  this  act.  Previous 
acts  relating  to  the  incorporation  of  the  Buchanan  &  Clif- 
ton Forge  Railway  Company  and  to  the  relations  of  the 
James  River  &  Kanawha  Co.  thereto  were  hereby  repealed.2 

In  April,  1876,  the  directors  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co. 
authorized  the  survey  and  location  of  the  Buchanan  &  Clif- 

1  Forty-second   Annual  Report  J.  R.&   K.   Co.,  pp.    150-52;    Forty- 
fourth  Report,  ibid.,  p.  409. 

2  Va.  Acts,  1875-76,  pp.  215-19. 


469]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL 

ton  Forge  Railway  Company  under  the  direction  of  Major 
Peyton  Randolph,  who  organized  a  corps  of  engineers  and 
began  the  survey  in  May,  1876.  The  subscription  of  the 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  the  capital  stock  of  the  new  company  was 
made  in  April,  1876,  it  being  a  project  fostered  and  con- 
trolled by  that  company.  The  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge 
Railway  Co.  was  organized  Nov.  16,  1876.  The  expected 
cooperation  of  Richmond  in  promoting  the  project  was  not 
forthcoming,  which  proved  a  great  handicap  to  the  enter- 
prise. At  a  meeting  of  the  stockholders  of  the  new  com- 
pany on  November  16,  1876,  the  subscription  of  4,000 
shares  was  formally  accepted.  An  organization  of  the  com- 
pany was  then  effected  by  the  election  of  Charles  S.  Carring- 
ton  as  president;  of  Wm.  P.  Munford  as  secretary  and 
treasurer;  and  of  W.  W.  Gordon,  Thomas  Seddon,  A.  Y. 
Stokes,  B.  H.  Nolin,  and  John  J.  Allen  as  directors.  Work 
was  begun  on  the  railroad  with  a  small  force  in  Nov.,  1876, 
and  was  prosecuted  for  several  months.  The  mortgage  on 
the  canal  works  to  secure  the  $400,000  of  bonds  authorized 
by  the  Legislature  was  duly  executed.1 

Acting  under  orders  of  the  president  of  the  two  com- 
panies, the  engineer  and  superintendent  of  the  J.  R.  &  K. 
Co.,  William  Jolliffe,  made  a  valuation  of  the  works  of  the 
company  west  of  Buchanan  such  as  would  be  of  us  to  the 
Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Co.,  the  aggregate 
valuation  amounting  to  $151,541.83.  The  new  railway 
company  struggled  on  with  inadequate  and  precarious 
means  and  progress  was  slow.  Its  estimated  cost  was  only 
$472,000,  but  even  this  modest  amount  was  not  forthcom- 
ing. Meanwhile  the  necessities  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  de- 
manded its  prompt  completion  as  a  means  of  increasing 
traffic  by  connecting  with  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Railway 
at  Clifton  Forge.  In  April,  1877,  President  Carrington 

1  Forty-third  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  99,  103,  263-4. 


230     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KAN  AW  HA  COMPANY      [470 

resigned,  and  Major  John  W.  Johnston,  who  was  the  last 
president  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  was  elected  to  succeed  him.1 

The  demands  of  the  situation  were  such  that  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1877  the  company  made  a  determined  effort  to  con- 
struct the  railroad.  Work  thereon  was  resumed  with  a 
large  force  of  convicts  furnished  by  the  state  to  the  J.  R. 
&  K.  Co.  free  of  charge  and  hired  by  it  to  the  railway  com- 
pany. The  work  progressed  favorably  for  a  time,  and  only 
required  some  small  corporate  aid  to  make  it  a  success. 
Such  progress  was  made  with  convict  and  free  labor  that 
thirty-four  miles  of  road  were  more  than  half  graded  within 
three  months,  and  preparations  were  made  for  getting  ties 
and  other  timbers.  The  company  expected  to  press  the 
work  to  completion  during  the  ensuing  winter.2 

At  this  juncture  occurred  the  freshet  of  November,  1877. 
The  James  river,  especially  above  Lynchburg,  became  a 
roaring  torrent  which  played  havoc  with  everything  across 
its  path  and  damaged  the  canal  throughout  its  entire  length. 
The  damage  inflicted  on  the  company's  works  was  estimated 
at  $200,000.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the 
canal,  as  the  company  never  recovered  from  the  effects  of 
this  last  and  severest  blow.  The  canal  was  so  broken 
and  riddled  that  it  was  at  first  considered  ruined;  even 
the  railway  projected  to  Clifton  Forge  was  damaged  to 
the  extent  of  $18,000.  Work  on  the  railway  was  at  once 
suspended  and  the  convict  force  which  had  been  employed 
thereon  was  transferred  to  the  canal  and  joined  to  another 
convict  force  to  effect  repairs  along  the  line.  By  act  of 
Dec.  12,  1877,  the  commonwealth  agreed  to  furnish  for 
canal  repairs  all  the  available  convict  labor  of  the  state,  free 
of  hire,  and  to  furnish  in  addition  a  sum  of  money  not  ex- 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  235,  265-8,  317. 

*  Forty-fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  411. 


47 1  ]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  231 

ceeding  35  cents  per  capita  per  day  to  feed,  clothe,  and 
guard  the  convicts  until  the  work  of  repairs  should  be  com- 
pleted. In  return  for  this  aid  from  the  state  the  company 
was  required  to  execute  its  obligation  payable  within  five 
years  from  the  passage  of  the  law.  Through  navigation 
to  Lynchburg  was  resumed  in  February,  iS/S.1 

Following  the  freshet  the  stockholders  held  seven  special 
meetings  before  their  regular  annual  meeting  in  November, 
1878;  but  were  unable  to  take  effective  measures  to  retrieve 
the  losses  due  to  the  disaster.  Upon  the  prostration  of  the 
company's  works  by  the  freshet,  traffic  necessarily  went  to 
competing  lines,  whose  superior  facilities  and  eager  bid 
for  business  rendered  still  more  difficult  the  company's 
effort  to  regain  the  business  it  had  lost.  To  add  to  its  dif- 
ficulties, a  minor  freshet  in  1878  again  threw  the  company 
back  and  thwarted  its  plans  for  resumption  of  work  on  the 
railroad.  The  company  was  now  in  more  serious  financial 
embarrassment  than  at  any  time  in  its  history.  A  suit 
for  foreclosure  was  instituted  against  it,  and  though  its 
more  ardent  friends  tried  heroically  to  save  it,  its  end  was 
obviously  near.2 

During  the  session  of  1877-78,  the  General  Assembly 
passed  an  act  incorporating  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany 
Rail  Road  Co.,  and  authorized  it  to  purchase  any  of  the 
property  and  franchises  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  within  the 
limits  of  its  charter.  This  new  company  promptly  effected 
an  organization,  with  the  exception  of  the  election  of  a 
president.  On  Nov.  15,  1878,  its  vice-president,  H.  C. 
Parsons,  addressed  a  communication  to  the  president  of 
the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Major  John  W.  Johnston,  requesting 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  consultation  with  a  view 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  340-4,  412^13. 

3  Forty- fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  408-9;  Forty-fifth 
Report,  ibid.,  p.  54. 


232     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [472 

to  the  possible  purchase  by  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  RJ 
R.  Co.  of  the  works  of  the  ].  R.  &  K.  Co.  This  com- 
mittee was  duly  appointed  and  empowered  to  receive  pro- 
positions and  submit  the  same  to  the  stockholders.1 

The  J.  Ri.  &  K.  Co.,  while  averse  to  disposing  of  its 
property,  was  compelled  by  the  necessities  of  the  case  to 
give  serious  consideration  to  any  proposition  looking  to 
its  purchase.  A  suit  against  it  was  pending  in  the  courts, 
and  public  opinion  was  distrustful  of  its  utility  and  favor- 
able to  its  sale.  All  its  hopes  of  completion  had  failed 
utterly ;  it  was  hopelessly  insolvent ;  its  enemies  were  numer- 
ous and  aggressive,  its  friends  few  and  lukewarm.  Pre- 
sident Johnston  expressed  himself  as  being  strongly  opposed 
to  selling  the  property  to  any  private  corporation.  While 
admitting  that  the  situation  abounded  in  difficulties  and  un- 
certainties, he  insisted  that  in  any  event  the  repairs  on  the 
canal  should  'be  continued  and  pushed  to  early  completion.2 

General  Logan,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  fifteen  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  the  representatives  of  the  Rich- 
mond &  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co.,  presented  the  report  of  the 
committee  at  an  adjourned  meeting  of  stockholders  of  the 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  Nov.  28,  1878.  This  report  recommended 
the  sale  of  the  property  to  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  'R. 
R.  Co.,  and  set  forth  a  provisional  agreement  for  such  sale, 
which  was  adopted  by  the  stockholders.  This  decision  was 
against  the  wishes  and  advice  of  President  Johnston,  who 
thereupon  tendered  his  resignation.  By  unanimous  request 
of  the  stockholders  he  was  induced  to  withdraw  his  resig- 
nation, however,  and  agreed  to  execute  the  contract  reported 
by  the  committee  and  adopted  by  the  stockholders  when- 
ever the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co.  should  execute 
the  same  on  its  part,  and  to  report  his  action  to  an  ad- 

1  Forty-fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  389-90. 
•  Forty-fourth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  458-9. 


473]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  233 

journed  meeting  on  Dec.  5,  1878.  When  this  meeting  was 
held  President  Johnston  reported  that  the  contract  had  not 
been  executed,  and  again  tendered  his  resignation  but  was 
again  persuaded  to  withdraw  it.1 

Acting  upon  the  instructions  of  the  company,  President 
Johnston  engineered  the  introduction  of  a  bill  into  the  Leg- 
islature at  the  session  of  1878-79,  authorizing  the  J.  R.  & 
K.  Co.  to  sell  its  property  and  franchises  to  the  Richmond 
&  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co.;  and,  upon  further  instructions  by 
the  stockholders,  caused  a  supplemental  bill  to  be  introduced 
allowing  the  sale  of  the  property  and  franchises  of  the  J. 
R,.  &  K.  Co.  to  any  other  corporation,  person  or  persons, 
in  the  event  that  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co. 
failed  to  close  the  contract  or  purchase  authorized  by  the 
main  act.2  The  bill  encountered  unexpected  delays  and 
difficulties,  and  was  much  discussed  in  the  public  press. 
The  Richmond  Dispatch  kept  the  matter  of  the  canal  and  its 
sale  prominently  before  the  public.  The  tone  of  its  editor- 
ials, which  were  numerous,  was  to  the  effect  that  the  J.  R. 
&  K.  Co.  had  been  an  inefficient  and  unprofitable  enterprise, 
was  unequal  to  the  wants  of  the  section  it  traversed,  and 
should  be  superseded  by  a  railroad  under  the  authority  of 
the  act  then  pending  in  the  Legislature.  It  strongly  and 
consistently  urged  the  passage  of  the  bill.3 

While  the  matter  of  the  sale  of  the  company's  property 
was  under  discussion  the  Senate,  Jan.  16,  1879,  instructed 
its  committee  on  courts  of  justice  to  ascertain  and  report 
as  to  what  rights  and  franchises  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  pos- 
sessed and  would  convey,  in  the  event  of  its  sale,  to  another 
corporation.4 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  464-92. 

1  Forty-fifth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  12-13. 
'  Richmond  Dispatch,  Jan.  n,  1879;  Jan.  21,  1879;  Jan.  25,  1879;  Jan, 
28,  1879;  Jan.  30,  1879;  Jan.  31,  1879;  Feb.  7,  1879. 
4  Senate  Journal,  1878-79,  p.  144. 


234     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [474 

The  Senate  passed  a  further  resolution,  Feb.  12,  1879, 
requesting  the  president  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  furnish 
data  as  to  the  claims  and  debts  against  it,  and  as  to  what 
portion  of  these  the  R.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  would  be  required 
to  assume  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  then  pending  for  the 
sale  of  the  company's  works.  To  this  President  Johnston 
replied  that  the  debts  and  obligations  of  the  company 
amounted  to  $1,960,899;  and  that  the  provisional  con- 
tract with  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co.  required 
the  assumption  and  payment  of  all  these  debts  and  obliga- 
tions by  the  purchaser.1  Doubt  having  arisen  in  the  minds 
of  some  as  to  the  intentions  and  good  faith  of  the  railroad 
company,  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution,  Feb.  14,  1879, 
instructing  the  committee  on  roads  and  internal  navigation 
to  enquire  and  report  "  whether  or  not  the  Richmond  & 
Alleghany  Railroad  Co.,  as  at  present  organized,  intend  to 
build  the  road  proposed  between  the  city  of  Richmond,  Va., 
and  Clifton  Forge,  or  whether  it  is  the  purpose  to  sell  its 
franchises ".  The  committee  reported  that  satisfactory 
evidence  was  produced  as  to  the  good  faith  of  the  railway 
company  in  undertaking  to  build  the  road,  and  that  it  would 
not  sell  its  franchises  should  it  obtain  them.2 

Nevertheless  the  bill  encountered  strong  opposition  in  the 
Legislature  and  made  slow  progress  through  that  body. 
The  city  of  Norfolk  opposed  its  passage,  as  did  also  the 
city  of  Alexandria.  Gen.  Echols,  of  Augusta  County,  op- 
posed it  strenuously  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  basing  his 
argument  on  an  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
canal.  The  stockholders,  however,  voted  unanimously  in 
favor  of  its  sale,  and  the  friends  of  the  bill  rallied  to  its 
support.  It  excited  the  deepest  interest  in  the  public  mind, 
which  favored  its  passage.  After  a  protracted  struggle, 

1  Senate  Journal,  1878-79,  p.  269;  also  ibid.,  doc.  no.  22,  pp.  1-6. 
*  Senate  Journal,  1878-79,  pp.  280,  294. 


4.75]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  235 

lasting  from  Jan.  10  to  Feb.  6,  1879,  it  passed  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  83  to  28,  and  became  a  law  Feb.  27,  I879.1 

The  bill  authorized  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  sell  its  property 
and  franchises  to  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  Railway  Com- 
pany, which  was  required  to  maintain  the  canal  as  a  line 
of  commerce,  subject  to  the  interruptions  and  abandonment 
incident  to  the  building  of  the  railroad.  The  railroad  com- 
pany was  required  to  assume  and  pay  the  debts  and  obliga- 
tions of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  A  sum  of  money  to  be  agreed 
upon  of  not  less  than  $30,000  nor  more  than  $50,000  was 
to  be  paid  in  cash  to  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  be  expended  in 
payment  of  salaries  and  wages  due  officers  and  employees 
of  that  company  up  to  the  time  of  the  transfer,  and  in  pay- 
ment of  such  expenses  as  had  been  incurred  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  company  since  May  i,  1867.  The  railroad 
company  was  required  to  deposit  with  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  United  States  Bonds  to  the  amount  of  $500,000,  or 
in  other  approved  security,  as  a  pledge  for  the  completion 
of  its  railroad  up  the  valley  of  the  James  river  to  a  point 
at  or  near  Joshua's  Dam,  "  on  or  near  the  tow-path  to 
Clifton  Forge,  with  a  branch  of  like  gauge  to  Lexington 
from  the  mouth  of  North  River,  within  twenty  months 
of  such  sale  or  conveyance."  The  bill  further  provided 
that: 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  R.  R.  Co. 
to  maintain  the  present  water  supply  between  Bosher's  Dam 
and  tidewater,  and  along  the  Lynchburg  level  between  the 
water- works  dam  (which  shall  be  preserved)  about  Lynch- 
burg, and  the  first  lock  below  Lynchburg,  and  in  the  construc- 
tion of  its  railroad  it  shall  not  so  destroy  or  obstruct  the  pres- 
ent canal  between  Bosher's  Dam  and  tidewater,  or  between 
the  water-works  dam  above  Lynchburg  and  the  first  lock  below 
Lynchburg,  as  to  lessen  the  present  water  supply. 

1  Richmond  Dispatch,  Jan.  25,  1879;  Jan.  28,  1879;  Jan.  31,  1879;  Feb. 
7,  1879. 


236     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [476 

The  railway  company  was  required,  in  substituting  a 
railroad  in  place  of  the  canal  as  a  line  of  commerce,  not  to 
interrupt  the  business  of  the  canal  during  the  progress  of 
railroad  construction  "  on  such  parts  of  the  canal  as  are 
not  necessarily  occupied  by  the  railroad  at  the  time  of  con- 
struction"; and  was  forbidden  to  build  additional  dams 
across  the  James  river,  or  to  charge  tolls  on  the  navigation 
of  the  river  after  the  completion  of  the  railroad.  It  was 
further  required  to  furnish  the  people  on  the  south  side  of 
James  River  with  facilities  for  the  transportation  of  persons 
and  produce  across  the  river  equal  to  those  which  had  been 
afforded  by  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  The  bill  further  provided 
that  before  the  execution  of  the  contract  between  the  Rich- 
mond &  Alleghany  Railway  Company  and  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company  there  should  be  a  satisfactory  agree- 
ment between  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  Railway  Com- 
pany and  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Company, 
which  agreement  must  be  made  within  twenty  days  after 
the  passage  of  this  act.1 

Following  the  passage  of  this  bill  the  railroad  company 
was  slow  to  avail  itself  of  the  authority  granted  it  to  pur- 
chase the  property  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany, and  there  ensued  a  period  of  waiting  and  uncertainty. 
The  management  of  the  canal  company  could  not  say  what 
its  future  would  be  or  what  facilities  the  line  could  afford 
for  present  or  prospective  business.  Shippers  became 
alarmed  as  to  the  safety,  sufficiency  and  permanency  of 
canal  transportation;  boat  owners  declined  to  build  new 
boats.  Competing  lines  made  the  most  of  the  situation  by 
offering  special  rates  to  attract  business,  which  involved  the 
company  in  an  unprofitable  rate  war.  Under  these  condi- 
tions the  company  memorialized  the  legislature,  asking  the 
enactment  of  the  supplemental  bill  then  pending,  the  terms 

1  Va.  Acts,  1878-79,  pp.  118-125. 


CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  237 

of  which  authorized  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany to  sell  to  any  other  party  in  the  event  of  the  Rich- 
mond &  Alleghany  Railway  Company's  failure  to  pur- 
chase its  works.1  In  response  to  this  petition  the  legislature 
passed  the  act  of  April  2,  1879,  authorizing  the  sale  of  the 
company's  property  to  other  parties  than  the  Richmond  & 
Alleghany  Railway  Company.2 

Negotiations  between  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  and  the  railway  company  continued  during  the 
spring  and  summer  of  1879,  but  without  reaching  an  agree- 
ment. Under  the  authority  of  the  supplemental  bill  of 
April  2,  1879,  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  then 
proceeded  in  July,  1879,  by  advertisement  to  invite  proposi- 
tions from  other  parties  for  the  purchase  of  its  works;  but 
no  such  propositions  were  forthcoming.  After  these  suc- 
cessive and  vexatious  dissappointments  the  company  re- 
sumed work  on  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  railway,  in 
September,  1879,  and  made  considerable  progress  in  in  the 
construction  of  the  road.3 

Meanwhile  President  Johnston  was  actively  engaged  in 
straightening  out  the  affairs  of  the  James  River  and  Kan- 
awha Company  and  the  Buchanan  and  Clifton  Forge  Rail- 
way Company  by  the  settlement  of  pressing  obligations  and 
by  securing  further  legislation  in  the  interest  of  these  com- 
panies. He  was  not  without  hope  that  by  these  measures 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  would  be  enabled 
successfully  to  manage  its  business,  to  consolidate  the  re- 
duced indebtedness,  to  preserve  its  property,  to  complete  the 
Buchanan  and  Gift  on  Forge  Railroad,  and  gradually  to 
convert  the  canal  into  a  railroad.4  In  the  furtherance  of 

1  Forty-fifth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  54-55;  Senate  Jour- 
nal, 1879-80,  doc.  32. 

1  Va.  Acts,  1878-79,  pp.  386-387. 

*  Forty-fifth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  54-61. 

4  Forty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  p.  120. 


THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY      [478 

these  objects  he  secured  from  the  legislature  the  passage 
of  a  bill,  January  24,  1880,  providing  for  the  continued  use 
of  convict  labor;  and  of  a  second  bill,  February  10,  1880, 
authorizing  the  consolidation  of  the  James  River  and  Kan- 
awha  Company  and  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway 
Company,  and  making  it  lawful  for  the  former  to  acquire 
the  works,  property  and  franchises  of  the  latter  by  purchase 
or  agreement.1 

Spurred  to  action  by  these  measures  of  President  John- 
ston, the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  Railway  Company  an- 
nounced early  in  March,  1880,  that  they  were  ready  to  close 
the  pending  agreement  for  the  purchase  of  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company's  works  and  franchises.  They 
stated  that  they  had  deposited  with  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  the  sum  of  $500,000  required  by  the  act  of  assembly, 
and  that  they  were  ready  to  pay  to  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  the  $30,000,  and  to  the  Buchanan  & 
Clifton  Forge  Railway  Company  the  $4,000,  required  by  the 
contract.  On  March  4,  1880,  President  Johnston  com- 
municated these  facts  to  an  adjourned  meeting  of  stock- 
holders and  congratulated  them  upon  this  consummation  as 
well  as  upon  the  prospect  of  the  early  construction  of  a  rail- 
road up  the  James  river  valley.  The  company's  counsel, 
Major  Isaac  T.  Carrington,  presented  and  read  the  deed 
conveying  the  property  to  the  Richmond  and  Alleghany 
Railway  Company.2 

The  following  day,  March  5,  1880,  in  the  presence  of  the 
stockholders,  the  deed  of  conveyance  was  formally  delivered 
by  an  exchange  of  duplicate  copies,  fully  executed  by  John 
W.  Johnston  and  George  M.  Bartholomew,  the  presidents 
of  the  two  companies.  Mr.  Bartholomew  then  announced 
that  he  formally  took  charge  of  all  the  works,  property  and 

1  Va.  Acts,  1879-80,  p.  12;  ibid.,  p.  39. 

*  Forty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  pp.  120-121. 


479]  CLOSING  DAYS  OF  THE  CANAL  239 

franchises  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company. 
On  the  same  day  the  capital  stock  of  the  Buchanan  &  Clif- 
ton Forge  Railway  Company,  then  held  by  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company  and  amounting  to  four  thousand 
shares  at  the  par  value  of  one  hundred  dollars  each,  was 
transferred  to  the  Richmond  &  Alleghany  Railway  company, 
and  the  convicts  employed  by  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company  wrere  returned  to  the  superintendent  of  the  peni- 
tentiary.1 

Thus  on  March  5,  1880,  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company,  the  successor  of  the  James  River  Company  and 
of  the  Richmond  Dock  Company,  after  a  troubled  career  of 
forty-five  years,  and  in  its  larger  aspect  of  ninety^five  years, 
passed  into  history.  At  the  time  of  its  sale  its  property 
consisted  of  the  Richmond  dock,  the  canal  from  Richmond 
to  Buchanan,  and  the  North  River  canal,  together  with  its 
interest  in  the  Buchanan  &  Clifton  Forge  Railway  Com- 
pany. Its  most  valuable  possession,  however,  was  its  right 
of  way  along  the  James  river  valley,  from  Richmond  to 
Clifton  Forge,  claimed  to  be  the  easiest  grade  from  the 
Appalachian  Mountains  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

The  dream  of  Washington,  Marshall,  and  Cabell  was  at 
last  realized,  not  in  just  the  way  they  had  fancied,  it  is  true, 
but  in  a  better  and  more  enduring  way,  and  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Railway  now  traverses  the  territory  along  the 
valleys  of  the  James,  the  Greenbrier,  the  New,  the  Great 
Kanawha  and  the  Ohio,  connecting  the  "  eastern  and  west- 
ern waters  ",  the  Mississippi  river  and  the  Virginia  capes.2 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  136-144. 

*  The  Richmond  &  Alleghany  Railroad  Company  began  promptly  to 
build  the  railroad  from  Richmond  to  Clifton  Forge,  a  distance  of  230 
miles.  The  roadbed  used  was  largely  the  tow-path  of  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Canal,  which  was  abandoned  as  the  railroad  advanced, 
and  within  a  year  had  ceased  to  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  commerce. 
In  1888  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Railway  Company  acquired  the  Rich- 


240     THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  COMPANY     [480 

mond  &  Alleghany  Railroad  and  in  due  time  merged  that  company  into 
its  corporate  system  as  the  James  River  Division  of  the  Chesapeake  & 
Ohio  Railway,  from  Richmond  to  Qifton  Forge.  See  Report  on  the 
Internal  Commerce  of  the  U.  S.,  1886,  Part  II  of  Commerce  and  Navi- 
gation, Appendix,  p.  68;  Fourth  Annual  Report  of  the  Railroad  Com- 
missioner of  the  State  of  Virginia,  p.  n;  Fifth  Annual  Report,  ibid., 
p.  219;  James  Poyntz  Nelson,  The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railway  (Rich- 
mond, 1916),  pp.  19-20.  Among  the  directors  of  the  Richmond  &  Alle- 
ghany Railroad  Company  in  1880  it  is  interesting  to  find  the  names  of 
James  G.  Elaine,  Hugh  McCulloch,  and  Cyrus  H.  McCormick.  See 
Fourth  Annual  Report  of  the  Railroad  Commissioner  of  the  State  of 
Virginia,  p.  143.  The  canal  still  extends  nine  miles  out  to  the  dam,  the 
Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Railway  Company  being  required  by  law  to  main- 
tain it  as  a  conduit  of  water  for  power  and  water  purposes  for  the  city 
of  Richmond.  See  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Com- 
mission, 1908,  p.  208.  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  from 
its  organization  in  1835  to  its  sale  in  1880,  received  and  disbursed  the 
sum  of  $23,329,332.38.  See  Forty-sixth  Annual  Report  J.  R.  &  K.  Co., 
PP-  JSS-iS^-  The  presidents  of  the  company  were  Joseph  C.  Cabell, 
Walter  Gwynn,  William  B.  Chittenden,  John  Y.  Mason,  Thomas  H. 
Ellis,  Charles  S.  Carrington,  and  John  W.  Johnston;  the  chief  engi- 
neers of  the  company  were  Benjamin  Wright,  Charles  Ellet,  Jr.,  E.  H. 
Gill,  Walter  Gwynn,  D.  S.  Walton,  E.  Lorraine,  James  M.  Harris  and 
William  Jolliffe;  the  most  noteworthy  secretaries,  C.  O.  Gerberding  and 
William  P.  Munford.  Thomas  M.  Bondurant  and  Robert  A.  Lancaster, 
prominent  directors  of  the  company,  each  served  as  acting-president  for 
a  short  while,  the  former  in  1849  and  the  latter  in  1867. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


SOURCES 

A  Collection  of  all  the  Acts  and  Parts  of  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  Virginia  from  1784  to  the  Session  of  1829-30,  inclusive,  Relating 
to  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  (Richmond,  1830). 

Acts  of  General  Assembly  for  Clearing  and  Improving  the  Navigation 
of  James  River,  October,  1784  to  November,  1793  (Richmond,  no 
date). 

Amended  Regulations  for  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Canal,  etc.  ORichmond,  1845). 

American  State  Papers  Miscellaneous,  I,   1808. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  President  to  the  Sockholders  of  the  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company,  together  with  the  proceedings  of  the  stock- 
holders, 1835-1880,  inclusive. 

Annual  Reports  Virginia  Board  of  Public  Works,  1817-1875. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  Railroad  Commissioner  of  the  State  of  Virginia, 
1880,  1881. 

Argument  for  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  in  the  Suit  of  Eugene  Davis  et  al.  vs. 
the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  and  the  State  of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1867). 

Joseph  €.  Cabell,  Address  of  Joseph  C.  Cab  ell  to  the  Citizens  of  Rich- 
mond .  ...  on  the  expediency  of  a  liberal  subscription  to  the  stock 
of  the  James  River  and  Kanav^ha  Company  (Richmond^  1835). 

Defense  of  the  Canal  and  of  a  Continuous  Water  Line  through 

Virginia  (Richmond,  1845). 

Congressional  Globe,  41  'Congress,  1869-70. 

Correspondence  of  the  President  of  the  'James  River  mid  Kanawha  Com- 
pany with  an  association  of  French  Capitalists  (Richmond,  1860). 

W.  P.  Craighill,  The  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  or  Central  Water  Line  of  Vir- 
ginia; Report  of  the  examination  of  a  survey  of  the  Kanawha 
River  from  the  falls  tp  the  Ohio  River  (Richmond,  1873). 

Charles  Ellet,  Jr.,  Report  in  Relation  to  the  Water  Power  on  the  line 
of  the  J.  R.  6-  K.  Canal  ((Richmond,  1839). 

Report  on  the  Survey  for  a  ship  canal  from  Richmond  to  Warwick 

.  .  .  for  the  connection  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Improvement  with  Tide- 
water (Richmond,  1839). 

Report  of  the  Chief  Engineer  for  the  extension  of  the  Jstmes  River 

and  Kanawha  Improvement  from  Lynchburg  to   the   Ohio   River 
(Richmond,  1838). 

Thomas  H.  lEllis,  Letters  from  the  President  of  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company  (iRichmood,  1867). 
48i]  241 


242  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [482 

Albert  Gallatin,  Report  on  Roads  and  Canals  in  American  State  Papers 

Miscellaneous,  I,  1808. 

James  M.  Harris,  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal;  Report  on 
.     Lockage  and  Cost  of  Construction  and  Practicability  of  Locks  and 

Dams  on  the  New  River  (Richmond,  1874). 
W.  W.  Hening,  The  Statutes-at-Large  (Richmond,  18231). 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal;  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War 
.  .  .  relative  to  the  survey  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal 
(Washington,  1871). 

Journals  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia. 
Journals  and  Documents  of  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia. 
Journals  and  Documents  of  the  Senate  of  Virginia. 
Laws  of  West  Virginia. 

Madison  Papers,  vol.  Ixxiii,  Writings  to  Madison. 
Memorial  of  Directors  of  the  James  River  Company  to  the  Legislature 

of  Virginia  (Richmond^  1790). 
Memorial  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia, 

January,  1860  (Richmond,  1860). 

Memorial  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  relative  to  water  communication  between  the  Atlantic 
and  the  Mississippi  ((Richmond,  1870). 

Memorial  of  the  Twelfth  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa  to  the 
United  States  Congress,  relative  to  water  communication  between 
the  Atlantic  and  the  Mississippi  (Des  Moines,  1868). 
Memorial  of  the  Thirteenth  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa  to 
the   United  States  Congress,  relative  to  water  communication  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  and  the  Mississippi  River  (Des  Moines,  1870). 
Memorial  of  the  Louisville  and  Cincinnati  Commercial  Conventions  to 
the  Congress  of  the   United  States,  relative  to  water  communica- 
tions between  the  Mississippi  River  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean  (Rich- 
mond, 1873).     < 
Newspapers :  Kanawha  Banner. 

Kanawha  Republican. 
Kanawha  Valley  Star. 
Lynchburg  Virginian. 
National  Intelligencer. 
Norfolk  Beacon. 
Richmond  Dispatch. 
Richmond  Enquirer. 
Richmond  Examiner. 
Richmond  Standard  (weekly). 
Richmond  Times. 
Richmond  Whig. 
Virginia  Gazette. 


483]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  243 

Niles'  Weekly  Register. 

Petition  of  Alleghany,  Botetourt,  Rockbridge,  Amherst,  Bedford  and 
Campbell,  December  29,  1827. 

Petition  of  Chesterfield,  Powhatan,  and  of  Cumberland  Counties,  and 
of  Manchester,  December  4,  1817. 

Petition  of  Citizens  of  Lynchburg,  December  10,  1827. 

Petition  of  Lynchburg,  Campbell,  Bedford,  Amherst,  December  15,  1830. 

Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1829-30  ('Richmond,  1830). 

Regulations  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  and  laws  for  its 
protection,  together  with  tables  of  tolls,  weights  and  distances 
('Richmond,  1840). 

Reports  on  the  Summit  Level  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany and  on  a  Geological  Examination  of  the  Line  of  the  Canal 
and  Contemplated  Reservoirs  (Richmond,  1857). 

Report  of  Committee  of  Commerce  on  Sundry  Bills  for  the  construc- 
tion and  improvement  of  Interior  Lines  of  Navigation  (Washing- 
ton, 1873). 

Report  of  Committee  of  Commerce,  House  of  Representatives,  February 
*3,  1873  (Washington,  1873). 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Roads  and  Internal  Improvements  at  the 
Session  of  the  Legislature  1831-32,  Presenting  a  Review  of  the 
Various  Public  Acts,  Resolutions,  Reports  and  Surveys  touching  the 
Subject  of  the  Connection  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Waters 
through  the  Territory  of  Virginia  (iRichmond,  1832). 

Report  of  the  Chief  Engineer  to  the  President  and  Directors  of  the 
James  River  &  Kanawha  Company  (Richmond,  1848). 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Hall  (Richmond,  no  date). 

Report  of  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  view  certain  rivers  within 
the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1816). 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  National  Board  of  Trade  on  a  Con- 
tinuous Water  Line  of  Transportation  through  Virginia  ([Rich- 
mond, 1869). 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  Roads  and  Internal  Navigation  of  the  Sen- 
ate and  House  of  Delegates,  February  19,  1861  (Richmond,  1861). 

Reports  of  U.  S.  Engineers  upon  Transportation  Routes  to  the  Seaboard 
(Washington,  1875). 

Reports  of  the  U.  S.  Engineers  on  the  Survey  of  the  fames  River  6* 
Kanawha  Canal  and  on  the  Advantages  of  the  Central  Water  Line 
as  a  National  Work  (Richmond,  1871). 

Resolutions  and  Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Nelson  County 
Appointed  to  Open  Books  of  Subscription  to  the  James  River  & 
Kanawha  Improvement,  with  Sundry  Documents,  etc.  (Richmond, 
1832). 


244  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [484 

J.  D.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents  (Washington, 

1896-1899). 
Senate  Reports,  Transportation  Routes  to  the  Seaboard  (Washington, 

1875). 
S.  Shepherd,  The  Statutes  at  Large  (Hening,  New  Series,  'Richmond, 

1835). 

Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1805. 
Statement  of  James  River  Company,  1816. 
Supplementary  Report  of  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  James 

River  &  Kanawha  Company  on  the  Improvement  of  the  Kanawha 

River  and  Resources  of  the  Kanawha  Valley  (Richmond,  1856). 
The  Writings  of  George   Washington   (Ford  ed.,  N.  Y.  and  London, 

1891);  also  ibid.,  Sparks  ed.  (Boston,  18317). 

The  Writings  of  James  Madison  (Hunt  ed.,  'Ni  Y.  and  London,  1901). 
Virginia  Acts  of  Assembly. 

SECONDARY  WORKS 

C.  H.  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  1776-1861  (Chicago,  1910). 

G.  Armroyd,  A  Connected  View  of  the  Whole  Internal  Navigation  of 
the  United  States  (Phila.,  1830). 

George  W.  Bagby,  The  Old  Virginia  Gentleman  and  Other  Sketches 
(N.  Y.,  1910). 

Albert  J.  Beveridge,  The  Life  of  John  Marshall  (Boston  and  N.  Y., 
1919),  4  vols. 

Morris  Birkbeck,  Notes  on  a  'Journey  in  America  from  the  Coast  of 
Virginia  to  the  Territory  of  Illinois  (London,  1818). 

(D.  T.  Bisbie,  An  Appeal  for  the  Speedy  Completion  of  the  Water  Line 
of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1857). 

R.  A.  Brock,  Richmond  as  a  Manufacturing  and  Trading  Center,  in- 
cluding a  Historical  Sketch  of  the  City  (.Richmond,  1880). 

J.  'M.  Callahan,  History  of  West  Virginia  (Published  by  the  Semi- 
Centennial  Commission  of  West  Virginia,  1913). 

G.  S.  Callender,  The  Early  Transportation  and  Banking  Enterprises  of 
the  States  in  Relation  to  the  Growth  of  Corporations  in  Quarterly 
Journal  of  Economics,  vol.  xvii. 

W.  A.  Christian,  Richmond,  Her  Past  and  Present  (Richmond,  1913). 

C.  Crozet,  Outline  of  the  Improvements  in  the  State  of  Virginia  (Phila., 
1848). 

Documents  Containing  Statistics  of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1851). 

W.  G.  Donnani,  Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Cheap 
Transportation,  March  18,  1874  (Washington,  1874). 

R.  T.  W.  Duke,  /.  R.  &  K.  Canal;  Speech  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, February  13,  1873  (Washington,  1873). 

S.  B.  French,  Central  Water  Line  of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1873). 


485]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  245 

H.  B.  Grigsby,  Virginia  Convention  of  1829-30  (Richmond,  1854). 
Grover  and  Bolster,  Hydrography  of  Virginia  ('Geological  Series,  Bul- 
letin no.  iii,  1906). 

R.  R.  Howison,  History  of  Virginia  (Phila.,  1846). 
A.  B.  iHulbert,  Great  American  Canals,  vols.  i  and  ii  (Cleveland,  1904). 

Washington's  Road  (Cleveland,  1903). 

— —  Washington  and  the  West   (<N.  Y.,  1905). 

Samuel   Kercheval,   History   of   the   Valley   of   Virginia    (Winchester, 

1833). 

James  Lyons,  The  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  (no  date) . 
Caroline  E.  iMacGill,  History  of  Transportation  in  the  United  States 

before  1860  (Washington,  1917). 

John  Marshall,  Life  of  George  Washington  (Phila.,  1804-1807). 
J.  B.  McMaster,  A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  (N.  Y., 

1002). 

M.  F.  Maury,  Physical  Survey  of  Virginia  (Richmond,  1868). 
S.  A.  Mitchell,  Compendium  of  the  internal  improvements  of  the  United 

States  (Phila.,  1835). 

S.  Mordecai,  Richmond  in  Bygone  Days  (Richmond,  1830,  1860). 
R,  L.   Morton,   The   Virginia  State  Debt  and  Internal  Improvements, 

1820-38,  in  The  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  vol.  25,  April,  1917. 
James  Poyntz  Nelson,  The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railway  (Richmond, 

1916). 

Preliminary  Report  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Commission,  1008  (Wash- 
ington, 1908). 
H.  V.  Poor,  History  of  the  Railroads  and  Canak  of  the  United  States 

(N.  Y.,  1860). 

Poor's  Manual  of  Railroads,  1889  (N.  Y.,  1889). 
T.  C.  Purdy,  Canals  in  Tenth  Census,  1880,  iv. 
Necessity  to  Commerce  of  cheap  water  communication  between  the  East 

and  the  West  (Toledo,  1877,  author  not  given). 
John  Pickell,  A  New  Chapter  in  the  Early  Life  of  Washington  (N.  Y., 

1856). 
J.  D.  Imboden,  Report  on  Virginia  in  Report  on  the  Internal  Commerce 

of  the  United  States,  1886  (Part  ii  of  Commerce  and  Navigation, 

Appendix). 
W.  L.  Royal,  A  History  of  Virginia  Banks  and  Banking  Prior  to  the 

Civil  War  (>N.  Y.  and  Washington,  1907). 
J.  L.  Ringwalt,  Development  of  Transportation  Systems  in  the  United 

States  (Phila.,  1888). 

Speech  of  Mr.  Segar  of  Northampton  on  the  subject  of  a  general  sys- 
tem of  Internal  Improvements  ('Richmond,  1838). 

H.   S.  Tanner,  Memoir  of  the  Recent  Surveys,  Observations,  and  In- 
ternal Improvements  in  the  United  States  (Phila.,  1829). 


246  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [486 

A  Brief  Description  of  the  Canals  and  Railroads  of  the  United 

States  (Phila.,  1834). 
— ' —  The  American  Traveler  or  Guide  Book  through  the  United  States 

(Phila.,  1834). 
— : —  A  Description  of  the  Canal  and  Railroads  of  the  United  States 

(N.  Y.,  1840). 
A  Geographical,  Historical,  and  Statistical  View  of  the  Central  or 

Middle  United  States  (Phila.  and  N.  Y.,  1841). 
The  Central  Water  Line  from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Virginia  Capes 

(Prospectus  of  the  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  prepared  chiefly  by  E.  Lorraine, 

(Richmond,  1868). 
Transportation  to  the  Seaboard;   the  Central  Water  Route  from  the 

Mississippi  to   the  Atlantic,   by   the   Ohio,  Kanawha,  and  James 

Rivers  (Richmond,  1874,  author  not  given). 
The  Water  Route  to  the  Atlantic  from  the  Ohio  to  Norfolk,  including 

the  Merits  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  (Richmond, 

1830,  author  not  given). 
G.  W.  Ward,  The  Early  Development  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 

Project  (Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  series  xvii). 
Erastus  Wells,  Speech  on  Cheap  Transportation  of  the  Products  of  the 

West,  in  the  H.  of  R.,  January  31,  1874  (Washington,  1874). 
Noble  E.  Whitford,  History  of  New  York  Canals,  2  vols.   (Albany, 

1906). 

B.  H.  Wise,  Life  of  Henry  A.  Wise  (N.  Y.,  1899). 
Justin  Winsor,  The  Westward  Movement  (Boston  and  N.  Y.,  1897). 


INDEX 


Alexander,  Andrew,  51,  58n 
Allen,  John  J.,  229 
Ambler,  C.  H.,  i8pn 
Atlantic,     Mississippi     and    Ohio 
R.  R.,  185,  i86n,  227 

Bagby,  G.  W.,  173 
Balcony  Falls  Canal,  87 
Baldwin,  L.,  60,  61,  63 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  R.  R.,  19,  95n, 

117,  n8n,  i88n,  189-190,  196 
Bank  of  Virginia,  59,  105,  106,  107, 

io8n,  114,  H9n,  135,  136 
Barbour,  James,  51,  75 
Barnard,  J.  G.,  224 
Bartholomew,  G.  M.,  238 
Baxter,  Sydney  S.,  122 
Belknap,  W.  W.,  220 
Beveridge,  Albert  J.,  2On,  loin 
Birkbeck,  Morris,  39n 
Elaine,  James  G.,  240 
Blue  Ridge  Canal,  73,  74^,  87-88, 

143,  144,  167 

Blue    Ridge    Turnpike,    129,    134, 

144,  164,  177 

Board  of  Public  Works,  created', 

59 

Bondurant,  Thomas  M.,  240 
Breckenridge,  James,  son,  51,  185 
Briggs,  Isaac,  64,  65,  66 
Brindley,  James,  26 
Brockenbrough,  John,  119 
Brooks,  Elisha,  i8on 
Brown,  James,  32 
Brown,  James,  Jr.,  119,  151 
Bryce,  Archibald,  94n 
Buchanan,  James,  24,  26 
Buchanan  and  Clifton  Forge  ;R.  R., 
228-230,  237-239 

Cabell,   Joseph   C,   attends   Char- 

lottesville  Internal  Improvement 

Convention,  75 ;  importance  and 

.  character,    93,    153'     154, 

487] 


inaugurates  movement  to  found 
the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Company,    93-95;    aids    in   con- 
firmation of  charter,  99-100,  103- 
104,    109,    111-114;    realizes   im- 
portance of  western  trade,  117; 
prefers   canal   to   railroad,    120, 
190-191  ;   president  James  River 
and    Kanawha    Company,    122.; 
objects  to  state's  policy  concern- 
ing canal,   136;   demands  legis- 
lative investigation  of  his  official 
acts,    153;    is    vindicated,    153; 
criticisms    of,    153-154;    resigns 
presidency  of  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  155 
Cabell,  William,  24 
Caperton,  Hugh,  113 
Carrington,    Charles    (S.,     elected 
president  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  21  1  ; 
report   as   to   federal   aid,   225; 
president  Buchanan  and  Clifton 
Forge  R.  R.,  229 
Carrington,  Edward,  32 
Carrington,  Isaac  T.,  238 
Carruthers,  William,  son,  51,  s8n 
Central  Water  Line,  201-215 
Charlottesville    Internal    Improve- 

ment Convention,  75 
Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal, 


Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,   117, 

I24n,  186,  187,  19 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  R.   R.,   19, 

i86n,  227,  239,  240n 
Chittenden,    William    B.,    elected 

president  J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,   157; 

death  of,  158 
City  Point,  -R.  <R.,  i88n 
Clay,  Henry,  81 
Clendinen,   George,  24 
Coalter,  John,  member  commission 

to   view    rivers,    Sin;    president 

James  River  Company,  7on,  9in 
Cocke,  Charles,  94n 

247 


248 


INDEX 


[488 


Cocke,  John  H.,  122 

College  of  William  and  Mary,  71 

Confederate  'Government,  205-206 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  223 

Conoyer,  Simon  B.,  223 

Constitutional  Convention  of  1829- 
30,  76-80 

Covington  and  Ohio  R.  R.,  106 

Cowpasture  River,  21 

Craighill,  W.  P.,  220,  221,  224 

Crozet,  Claudius,  state  engineer, 
73;  importance  and  character, 
8m;  favors  railroad,  84-85 

Cumberland  Road,  19,  84n,  117 

Davis,  Henry  Gassaway,  223 
Delaware  and  Hudson  Canal,  I24n 
Determeyer,  Westlingh  &  Son,  139 
Dinwiddie,  'Robert,  n 
Dismal  iSwamp  Canal,  i88n 
Donolly,  Andrew,  24 
Donolly,  Andrew.  Jr.,  5on 

Early,  John,  122 

Ellet,  Charles,  Jr.,  124,  240 

Ellis,  Thomas  H.,  elected  president 
J.  R.  &  K.  Co.,  200;  negotiates 
with  French  firm  for  sale  of 
company's  property,  200-204 ; 
criticised  by  the  press,  210;  re- 
signs office,  211 

Erie  Canal,  117, 118,  i24n,  is8n,  212 

Fairfax,  Lord,  10 

Falmouth  and  Alexandria  R.  R., 

i88n 
Farmers'    Bank    of    Virginia,    59, 

105,  106,  io8n,  109,  136 
Faulkner,  C.  J.,  201 
Fisk,  Charles  B.,  178,  179 
Floyd,  John,  9in,  HI 
Foushee.  William,  president  James 

•River  Company,  27,  32,  33n 
Freshets,  146,  230,  231 
Fund   for    Internal   Improvement, 

created,  59 

Gallatin,  Albert,  33 
Gamble,  J.  G.,  32n,  5 in 
Gamble,  Robert,  32 
Gauley  River,  ^2 
Gerberding,  C.  O.,  240 
Giles,  William  B.,  9in 
Gill,  E.  H.,  i3in,  240 
Gillmore,  Q.  A.,  224 


Gordon,  W.  W.,  229 

Grant,  U.  S.,  218 

Great  Kanawha  River,  22n,  52-53, 
170-180 

Greenbrier  River,  22,  52-53 

Guyandotte,  83 

Guyandotte  Turnpike,  126 

Gwynn,  Walter,  elected  president 
J.  R.  &  K  Co.,  155;  chief  en- 
gineer, 157 

Hamilton,  J.,  138,  139,  140,  146,  183 
Harris,  David  B.,  I32n 
Harris,  James,  26 
Harris,  James  M.,  240 
Harrison,  Benjamin,  13,  17,  23 
Harrison,  Randolph,  122 
Harvey,  James  M.,  217 
Harvie,  John,  26 
Henry,  Patrick,  23 
Humphreys,  A.  A.,  220 

Irving,  Charles,  24 

Jackson  River,  21,  6on 

James  River,  21,  16411 

James  River  Company,  conceived 
by  Washington,  12,  19,  20;  as  a 
private  corporation,  21-47;  in- 
corporated, 23-25 ;  organized.  26 ; 
Washington  first  president  of, 
26 ;  officers  of,  26,  27,  32,  33,  700, 
9in;  canal  to  Westham,  28,  20- 
3O,  33,  87 ;  improvement  of  James 
river  by,  31-32,  38,  45 ;  other  im- 
provements effected  by,  73-75, 
87-90;  tolls  of,  32,  38,  46,  82,  88y 
oo ;  traffic  of,  32n,  45-46,  82-84, 
89;  Gallatin's  report  concerning, 
33;  public  sentiment  regarding, 
34-35,  37-38,  30-43,  4$,  61,  69-71 ; 
finances  of,  32,  34,  36,  37-39,  73- 
75,  87-90;  legal  proceedings 
against,  41-43;  purchased  by  the 
state,  43 ;  summary  of  as  a  priv- 
ate corporation,  44-45 ;  as  a  state 
enterprise  (second  James  River 
Company),  48-91;  taken  under 
state  control,  62-68;  organization 
changed,  72 ;  summary  of  works 
of,  87-90;  sale  of  to  James  River 
and  Kanawha  Company,  90-91 

James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany, promotion  of  scheme  for, 
92-95;  act  of  incorporation,  95- 


489] 


INDEX 


249 


99;  confirmation  of  charter,  99- 
116;  organization,  118-22;  offi- 
cers of,  122,  240;  construction 
of  works  of,  124-126,  129-133, 
143-144,  146,  157-162;  descrip- 
tion of  works  of,  163-168,  175, 
176,  177-179;  finances  of,  134- 
143,  146,  150-151,  155,  182-183, 
198-200,  226,  240;  tolls  of,  133, 
181,  183;  purchase  of  Richmond 
dock  by,  145;  legislative  inves- 
tigation of,  147-148;  cost  of 
works  of,  147,  151,  I55n,  158, 
182;  public  sentiment  concern- 
ing, 127-128,  140-141,  146-148, 
188,  190-198,  209-211;  tidewater 
connection  of,  145,  156-157,  159; 
traffic  of,  165-175,  176,  179,  184; 
competition  with  railroads,  n8n, 
185-186,  188-189,  227-228,  231, 
236;  capital  stock  of  increased, 
199;  effect  of  partisan  politics 
on,  194-196;  effect  of  Civil  War 
on  fortunes  of,  84n,  200,  205- 
209;  negotiations  with  French 
firm  for  sale  of  works,  200-204; 
movement  to  enlist  federal  aid 
in  behalf  of,  211-225;  attempt  to 
connect  with  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  R.  R.  at  'Clifton  Forge, 
226-230,  237-238;  sale  of  to 
Richmond  and  Allegheny  R.  R., 
238-239;  abandonment  of  works 
of,  239 

James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal, 
location  of,  124-125,  167;  com- 
pletion of  to  Lynchburg,  132;  to 
Buchanan,  157;  unfinished  por- 
tion above  'Buchanan,  158,  160, 
167;  cost  of,  158,  166-177; 
description  of,  165-168;  freight 
traffic  on,  168-171 ;  passenger 
traffic  on,  171-174:  tolls  on,  169- 
170,  172;  revenues  of,  168,  172- 

173,  175 ;  climatic  advantages  of, 

174,  213,  2iS 
Jefferson-,  Thomas,  18 
Johnson,  Chapman,  rip,  120 
Johnston,    John    W.,    member    of 

"  Windom  Select  Committee," 
elected  president  J.  R.  &  K.  Co., 
230;  negotiates  with  Richmond 
and  Alleghany  R.  R.,  230-234, 
237;  secures  legislative  meas- 
ures, 236-238;  closes  sale  of 


company's    property    and    fran- 
chises, 238-239 
Jolliffe,  William,  229,  240 

Kanawha    Board,     i82n,     197-198, 


Kanawha  River  Improvement,  62, 

74n,  75,  88-89,  127,  148-149,  164, 

177-181,  i82n,  197-198 
Kanawha  salt  trade,  127,  148-149, 

180 
Kanawha  Turnpike  Road,  62,  67, 

73,  74n,  81-84,  86,  89,  99n,   126, 

164,  176,  209 
Kearnes,  John,  24 

Lacy,  Eliot,  28 

Lafayette,  Marquis  de,  18,  23 

Lancaster,  Robert,  240 

Latrobe,  B.  H.,  224 

Letcher,  John,  aoi 

Lewis,  William  J.,  son',  51,  58n 

Lewisburg    Internal    Improvement 

Convention,  152 
Lincoln,  Abraham,  205 
Livermore,  Daniel,  123 
Lockhart,  Patrick,  24 
Lorraine,  E.,  193,  194,  240 
Loudoun  iR.  R.,  n8n 
Louisa  R.  R.,  i86n 
Lynchburg  and  New  'River  R.  R., 

95n 
Lynchburg  and  Tennessee  R.   R., 

i88n 

McCormick,  Cyrus  H.,  240 

McCulloch,  Hugh,  240 

McDowell,  James,  50,  58n,  94,  150, 
151,  152 

Madison,  James,  18,  23,  75,  185 

Manassas  Gap  R.  R.,  18411 

Marshall,  John,  quoted,  18;  Beve- 
ridge's  mistake  concerning,  2on  ; 
head  of  commission  to  view  cer- 
tain rivers,  50;  report  of  com- 
mission by,  51-58;  report  re- 
ferred to,  62;  member  Char- 
lottesville  Internal  Improvement 
Convention,  75;  aids  in  pro- 
motion of  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company,  100-104; 
referred  to,  154,  185,  211,  239 

Marx,   Samuel.   122 

Mason,  John  Y.,  elected  president 
J.  iR.  &  K.  Co.,  158;  importance 


250 


INDEX 


[490 


and    character,     15811-15911;    re- 

signs presidency  of  company,  200 
Maury,   Rev.  James,  9 
Mercer,  C.  R,  5  in 
Minieres,   Bellot   des,   Brothers   & 

Co.,  200 
Minieres,    Ernest    de    Bellot    des, 

200,  203,  204 
Mitchell,  John  H.,  223 
Monroe,  James,  75 
Moore,  Thomas,  61,  63,  64,  65,  66 
Mosby,  Hezekiah,  33n 
Munford,  William  P.,  229,  240 

National  Board  of  Trade,  221 
National  Commercial  Convention, 

214 

New  River,  22,  53-54,  54" 
New  River  R.  iR.,  ii8n 
New  Shenandoah  Company,  i88n 
Newton,  Thomas,  Jr.,  24 
Norfolk  Beacon,  127 
Norfolk    and    Petersburg    R.    R., 

i84n 
North     River     Improvement,    45, 

161-162,  164,  167-168,  239 
North  River  Navigation  Company, 

161-162 
Northwestern  Turnpike,  84n,  i88n 

"Old  James  River  Company,"  47n 
Orange  and  Alexandria  R.  R., 
,  227 


Panic  of  1837,  137,  13811 
Panic  of  1857,  i68n 
Panic  of  1873,  225 
Parsons,  ,H.  C,  231 
Pennsylvania  Canal,  148 
Petersburg  R.  R.,  n8n 
Pickett,  'George,  32 
Pleasants,  James,  9in 
Pollard,  Robert,  32,  33n 
Portsmouth  and  Roanoke  R.   R., 

i88n 

Potomac  Company,  12,  19,  20,  26 
Preston,  Thomas  L.,  510 
Preston,  William  B.,  94n 

Randolph,  Edmund,  26-27 
Randolph,  Peyton,  229 
Randolph,  Thomas  M.,  65 
Reid,  .Samuel  McD.,  119 
Removal  of  Deposits,  112 
Republic  of  Texas,  134 


Richmond,  trade  in  tobacco  and 
flour  (1817),  39n;  population. 
statistics  of,  iO4n  ;  subscriptions 
to  stock  of  James  River  and 
Kanawha  Company,  102,  106, 
107,  no-ill,  114-116,  non;  as- 
sessed value  of  real  estate  in 
(1834),  n6n;  bids  for  western 
trade,  117;  issues  corporation 
stock,  135;  petitions  for  tide- 
water connection,  159;  rise  and 
decline  as  a  port,  164-165  ; 
rivalry  with  Baltimore,  190;  fire 
following  evacuation  of,  2o8n; 
visited  by  "  Windom  'Select 
Committee,"  223 

Richmond  and  Alleghany  R.  R., 
231-240 

Richmond  and  Danville  R.  R., 
i84n,  185,  i86n,  227 

Richmond  and  Petersburg  R.  R., 


Richmond,   Danvilie  and  Junction 

R.  R.,  i88n 

Richmond  Dispatch,  233 
Richmond  Dock,  145-146,  147,  156- 

157,  159,  164-165,  239 
Richmond  Enquirer,  37,  69,  209 
Richmond,      Fredericksburg     and 

Potomac  R.  'R.,  i84n 
Richmond  Times,  209 
Richmond  Whig,  127,  210 
Rivanna  Connection,  160,  164,  167 
Rivanna  Navigation  Company,  160 
Rives,  William  C,  75,  94 
Roanoke,    Danville   and    Junction 

R.  R.,  i88n 
Robertson,    Wyndham,    120,    12  in, 

127 

Robinson,  Moncure,  120 
Rose,  Rev.  Robert,  2in 
Ross,  David,  26 

Sampson,  Richard,  122 

Seaboard  and  Roanoke  R.  R.,  i84n 

Sectionalism,  12,  13-14,  15,  40-41, 
71,  74  76-81,  84,  85,  86,  95n,  106- 
107,  155,  189-197,  208-209 

Seddon,  Thomas,  229 

Sheridan,  Philip,  207 

Sherman,  John,  223 

Skellern,  George,  24 

Sluice  navigation,  620,  127,  I79n 

South  Side  Connections,  161,  164, 
175 


490 


INDEX 


251 


South  Side  R.  R.,  185,  i86n 

Southall,  Turner,  24 

Surveys,  28,  60,  61,  64-65,  73,  85, 
124-125,  131,  13211,  220,  221 

Staunton  and  Parkersburg  Turn- 
pike, 84n 

Staunton  and  Potomac  'R.  R.,  n8n 

Stevenson1,  Job  E.,  219 

Stokes,  A.  Y.,  229 

Tate,  Joseph,   114 
Taylor,  Robert,  24 
Tazewell,  Littleton  W,  pin 
Tidewater    Connection,    145,    156- 

157,  159 
Tolls,  32,  38,  46,  82,  88,  127,  133, 

I49n,  169-70,  181,  183 
Tyler,  John,  Speaker  of  the  House, 

23 
Tyler,  John,  Governor,  39 

Virginia  and  Tennessee  R.  R., 
i84n,  185 

Virginia  Canal  Company,  200-204 

Virginia  Central  R.  R.,  iSkin,  185, 
i86n 

Virginia  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1829-30,  76-77 

Virginia,  dismembered,  208-209 

Walker,  Ezra,  1270 
Walton,  D.  ,S.,  240 
Washington,  George,  surveyor  and 
explorer,    10-11;    urges   internal 


improvements  connecting  east 
with  west,  11-12;  letter  to  Ben- 
jamin Harrison,  13-18;  visits 
Richmond,  18,  23;  father  of 
Virginia  internal  improvements, 
19;  originator  of  James  River 
Company,  and  of  Potomac  Com- 
pany, 19;  president  of  James 
River  Company,  26-27 ;  and  of 
Potomac  Company,  26;  corres- 
pondence with  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, 26-27;  shares  vested  in 
by  the  state,  24;  Madison's  let- 
ter concerning,  18-19;  referred 
to,  116,  117,  154,  184,  211,  239 

Washington,  Laurence,  5  in 

Washington  College,  61,  71,  lion 

Water  rents,  36,  175,  i76n 

Weitzel,  G.,  224 

Welland  Canal,  I24n 

West,   Rodman  B.,  223 

White  Sulphur  Springs,  83n 

Willey,  Waitman  T.,  219 

Willis'  River,  45 

Winchester  and  Potomac  R.  R., 
i84n 

Windom,  William,  175,  223 

"  Windom  Select  Committee,"  223 

Winsor,  Justin,  2on 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  196-197,  199 

Wright,  Benjamin,  73,  85,  lion, 
123,  12411,  129,  13211,  240 

Wright,  Simon  W.,  123 


VITA 


BORN  at  Kilmarnock,  Virginia,  May  22,  1875;  studied  at 
Richmond  College,*  1890-1894;  B.  A.  ibid.,  1894;  Greek 
Medalist  ibid.;  M.  A.,  ibid.,  1904;  studied  at  Crozer  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  1898-1901,  Graduate  ibid.,  1901 ;  B.  D., 
ibid.t  1917;  Th.  M.,  ibid.,  1918;  studied  at  University  of 
Virginia,  Summer  Session,  1909;  graduate  student  at 
University  of  Chicago,  1916-1917,  A.M.  ibid.,  1917; 
graduate  student  at  Columbia  University,  Summer  Session, 
1917,  Winter  Semester,  1917-1918,  Summer  Session,  1918, 
Winter  Semester,  1919-1920. 

Pastor  of  Baptist  Churches,  Virginia  and  West  Virginia, 
1901-1916;  principal  Woodville  Classical  School,  Wood- 
ville,  Virginia,  1894-1895;  principal  Southside  Academy, 
Chase  City,  Virginia,  1895-1897;  Professor  of  Latin  and 
Mathematics,  Averett  College,  Danville,  Virginia,  1897- 
1898;  Principal  Waverly  High  School,  Waverly,  Virginia, 
1907-1910;  Principal  Driver  Agricultural  High  School, 
Driver,  Virginia,  February  I9i8-February,  1919;  Head  of 
History  Department  and  Professor  of  History,  State  Nor- 
mal School,  Fredericksburg,  Virginia,  February-June, 
1919;  Summer  Session,  ibid.;  Assistant  in  History,  Colum- 
bia University,  Winter  Semester,  1919-1920;  Assistant 
Professor  of  European  History,  The  Pennsylvania  State 
College,  February,  1920- June,  1922;  Freshman  Adviser, 
ibid.,  1921-;  Associate  Professor  of  History,  ibid.,  1922-; 

*  Now  University  of  Richmond. 

253 


254 

Lecturer  on  History,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Summer 
Session,  1920. 

Author  "  The  Virginia  Conventions  of  the  Revolution  ", 
Virginia  Law  Register,  November,  1904;  "Arrested  Pro- 
gress toward  the  New  Testament  Ideal  of  a  Church  as  Il- 
lustrated by  the  Creeds  of  Christendom  ",  Religious  Herald, 
Richmond,  Virginia,  July  29,  1915. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
f  i  te  'oiy?i\^a^e4P  which  renewed. 

'  ject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
(J9096slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


